Kluksdahl v. Loyola University New Orleans

Justia Dockets & Filings Fifth Circuit Louisiana Eastern District Kluksdahl v. Loyola University New Orleans

Kluksdahl v. Loyola University New Orleans

Plaintiff:	John Aaron Kluksdahl
Defendant:	Loyola University New Orleans
Case Number:	2:2016cv02990
Filed:	April 8, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Office:	New Orleans Office
County:	Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Ivan L.R. Lemelle
Presiding Judge:	Daniel E. Knowles
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
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
February 3, 2017	Filing 23 ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 17 Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 20 Motion to Recover Attorney's Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay Defendant's reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $410.00. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 2/3/2017. (mmv)
August 12, 2016	Filing 12 ORDER AND REASONS DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 Motion to Stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 in all respe cts and as set forth in document. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following Plaintiff's compliance with the above directive, Defendant may reurge its motion for a stay so long as such motion adequately addresses the applicability of the Colorado River abstention doctrine and any other relevant authority. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/12/2016. (my)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 3, 2017

Filing 23 ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 17 Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 20 Motion to Recover Attorney's Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay Defendant's reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $410.00. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 2/3/2017. (mmv)

August 12, 2016

Filing 12 ORDER AND REASONS DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 Motion to Stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 in all respe cts and as set forth in document. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following Plaintiff's compliance with the above directive, Defendant may reurge its motion for a stay so long as such motion adequately addresses the applicability of the Colorado River abstention doctrine and any other relevant authority. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/12/2016. (my)

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: Kluksdahl v. Loyola University New Orleans
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Aaron Kluksdahl
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: Loyola University New Orleans
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?