Cherry v. Shaw Coastal, Inc. et al

Plaintiff: John Cherry
Defendant: Shaw Coastal, Inc. and Michael Reasoner
Case Number: 3:2008cv00228
Filed: April 21, 2008
Court: Louisiana Middle District Court
Office: Baton Rouge Office
County: East Baton Rouge
Referring Judge: Christine Noland
Presiding Judge: Frank J. Polozola
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
October 31, 2012 197 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING denying 178 Shaw's Motion for New Trial; granting 178 Shaw's Motion for Remittitur; denying 180 Cherry's Motion to Dismiss Shaw's motion. ORDERED that pltf shall have 15 days to advise the Court whether he will accept a remittitur. FURTHER ORDERED that if pltf fails to accept the remittitur, the Court shall order a new trial solely on the issue of damages sustained by John Cherry. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 10/31/2012. (JDL)
January 21, 2011 158 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING granting 153 Motion for entry of Rule 54 judgment is hereby granted. The court finds that there is no just reason for delay and that final judgment should be entered against plaintiff and in favor of Shaw regarding plaintiffs claims for sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, punitive damages, and vicarious liability. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 1/21/2011. (CMM)
September 13, 2010 135 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING and ORDER granting 121 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial. Plaintiff John Cherry shall have 15 days to advise the Court whether he will accept a remittitur of $8,200 thereby reducing the award to $1,800 for the damages occasioned to John Cherry by the battery committed by defendant Michael Reasoner. FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to accept the remittitur, the Court shall order a new trial solely on the issue of damages sustained by John Cherry as a result of the battery or batteries committed by Michael Reasoner. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 9/13/2010. (JDL, )
August 3, 2010 119 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING and ORDER: Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Shaw Coastals motion for judgment as a matter of law and DENIES Reasoners motion for judgment as a matter of law. IT IS ORDERED that the aspect of the jury verdict regarding Reasoners claim against Shaw Coastal for sexual harassment by a co-worker and damages attributed to this claim is hereby VACATED.. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 8/3/2010. (CMM, )

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cherry v. Shaw Coastal, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Cherry
Represented By: Jill L. Craft Alford
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Shaw Coastal, 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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael Reasoner
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 [ 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?