Chauvin v. National Gypsum Service Company et al
Plaintiff: Tony Chauvin
Defendant: National Gypsum Company, National Gypsum Service Company and New NGC, Inc
Case Number: 2:2013cv05781
Filed: September 9, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Office: New Orleans Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: Kurt D. Engelhardt
Presiding Judge: Karen Wells Roby
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1145
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 21, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER and REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that: (1) The plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 32) is GRANTED, and the Court's Order and Reasons of June 13, 2014 (Rec. Doc. 29) is hereby VACATED; Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion t o Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 27) is hereby GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART. The plaintiff's claims under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1140, under the Louisiana Whistleblower Protection Statute, La. Rev. Stat. 23:967(A), and for intentional infliction of emotional distress are hereby DISMISSED; and (4) The defendant's Motion to Assess Defense Costs and Attorney Fees (Rec. Doc. 38) is hereby DENIED, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/21/2014.(cbs)
June 13, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER and REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 27) is hereby GRANTED, and the plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED. A motion for reconsideration of this Order, if any, must be filed within ten (10) days of the date this Order is entered by the Clerk of Court, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/13/2014. (cbs)
March 13, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER & REASONS granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Party New NGC, Inc dismissed. FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days in which to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 3/13/2014. (mmm)
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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chauvin v. National Gypsum Service Company et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: National Gypsum Company
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 ]
Defendant: National Gypsum Service Company
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 ]
Defendant: New NGC, Inc
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: Tony Chauvin
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?