Smith v. Walle Corporation

Smith v. Walle Corporation

Plaintiff:	Deming Smith
Defendant:	Walle Corporation
Case Number:	5:2013cv00219
Filed:	July 11, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office:	Lexington Office
County:	Clark
Presiding Judge:	Karl S. Forester
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 5, 2014	Filing 38 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: 1. Dft Walle Corporation's 17 MOTION in Limine is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part; 2. Unless Pla Deming Smith obtains prior approval from the Court, Smith, inc. his attys & witnesses, shall be prohibited from offering evidence at trial re damages for humiliation or embarrassment or evidence re the final determinations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on November 5, 2014. (MWZ) cc: COR
October 20, 2014	Filing 34 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Dft Walle Corporation's 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, in part, w/ respect to Pla Deming Smith's claim for age discrimination based on his termination from the AIB Specialist Position & Smith's hostile work environment claim; 2. Dft's 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment will be DENIED w/ respect to the remaining claims. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on October 20, 2014.(MWZ) cc: COR

Date Filed

Document Text

November 5, 2014

Filing 38 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: 1. Dft Walle Corporation's 17 MOTION in Limine is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part; 2. Unless Pla Deming Smith obtains prior approval from the Court, Smith, inc. his attys & witnesses, shall be prohibited from offering evidence at trial re damages for humiliation or embarrassment or evidence re the final determinations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on November 5, 2014. (MWZ) cc: COR

October 20, 2014

Filing 34 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Dft Walle Corporation's 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, in part, w/ respect to Pla Deming Smith's claim for age discrimination based on his termination from the AIB Specialist Position & Smith's hostile work environment claim; 2. Dft's 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment will be DENIED w/ respect to the remaining claims. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on October 20, 2014.(MWZ) cc: COR

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Walle Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Walle Corporation
Represented By:	Keith Moorman
Represented By:	Kyle M. Melloan
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Deming Smith
Represented By:	Edward E. Dove
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?