FLOWERS v. STEERPOINT MARKETING, LLC et al
| JOSEPH D FLOWERS, II |
| JOHN SLIMAK and STEERPOINT MARKETING, LLC |
| 1:2018cv01618 |
| May 28, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Doris L. Pryor |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
85
ORDER granting Defendant's 83 Verified Motion to Confirm Satisfaction of Judgment. The judgments entered by the Court on May 2, 2019 (Dkt. 62) and November 20, 2019 (Dkt. 75) have been satisfied in full. The Defendants owe a total of $746.12 in post-judgment interest to the Plaintiff. Within seven (7) days of payment, the parties shall file a joint notice with the Court stating that all post-judgment interest obligations have been satisfied. See Order for additional details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor on 4/8/2020. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER denying Defendant's 69 Motion to Set Aside Judgment under Rule (60)(b)(1). (See Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor on 9/3/2019. (MAC) Modified on 9/3/2019 (MAC).
|
|
Filing
62
CLOSED JUDGMENT in favor of the Plaintiff, Joseph D. Flowers, II, and against Defendants, Steerpoint Marketing, LLC and John Slimak, in the amount of $25,000.00. Signed by LAB/cag on 5/2/2019.(CBU)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
