Adams et al v. Nature's Expressions Landscaping, Inc.
Thomas Adams, Adam Allnutt, Frankie Anderson, Steven Atwood, Charles Cook, John Heska and Ron Stewart |
Nature's Expressions Landscaping, Inc. |
5:2016cv00098 |
March 30, 2016 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
Lexington Office |
Jessamine |
Joseph M. Hood |
Fair Labor Standards Act |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 94 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) 79 MOTION in Limine to exclude Notes made by Plaintiff's Wife is GRANTED; 2) The motion to exclude evidence of Dale Flygstad's conversation proving claim of retaliation is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 9/19/2018.(JJ)cc: COR |
Filing 93 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Ron Stewart's retaliation claim is GRANTED. 2. Defendant's 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Frankie Anderson's retaliation claim is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 9/14/2018.(GLD)cc: COR |
Filing 64 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs' 62 FIRST MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/31/2018.(JJ)cc: COR |
Filing 48 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Dft's 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Dimitri Roskolov is DENIED. Pla may substitute William Austin for Roskolov in this collective action. (2) Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternat ive Decertification, as to Harry Sussman, Andy Dwyer and Christopher Becknell is DENIED. (3) Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Patrick Johnson and Mark Comley is GRANTED. (4) Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative De certification, as to Joseph Sams is DENIED AS MOOT. (5) Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative Decertification, as to Justin Sanchez, Jeremy Thompson and Elijah Gawthorp is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on October 25, 2017. (AWD) cc: COR |
Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Plas' 14 Motion to Certify Collective Action Status is GRANTED. (2) Plas' proposed Notice (DE 14-1) and Opt-In Consent Form (DE 14-2) are APPROVED to be sent via US First Class Mail and e-mail to the FLS A Notice Group. (4) NEL shall provide Plas' counsel with an electronic file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, last known e-mail addresses, last known phone numbers, dates of employment, and dates of birth for all members of the FLSA Notice group within 7 days. (5) Dft shall post the Notice in a conspicuous place at its physical location accessible to all employees for the duration of the opt-in period. (6) Plas' counsel shall cause the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form to be sent to all members of the FLSA Notice Group who have not already filed Opt-In Consent Forms on the docket within 10 business days of receiving the above-referenced electronic file. (7) All members of the FLSA Notice Group s hall be provided 90 days from the date of mailing the Notice and Opt-In Consent Form to opt-in to this lawsuit. (8) All Opt-In Consent Forms will be deemed to have been filed with the Court the date that they are stamped as received, and Plas& #039; counsel will file them electronically on the docket on a weekly basis, at a minimum. (9) The parties shall file a Joint Status Report, detailing their compliance with this Order and describing the progression of the case, within 14 days of the close of the opt-in period. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on November 1, 2016. (AWD) cc: COR |
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 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.