Patel et al v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. et al
| Dhananjay Patel, Safdar Hussain, Vatsal Chokshi, Dhaval Patel and Niral Patel |
| 7-ELEVEN, INC., Mary Carrigan and Andrew Brothers |
| 1:2017cv11414 |
| August 1, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Nathaniel M. Gorton |
| Other Labor Litigation |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 704 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
221
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 211 ) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 219 ) is ALLOWED. So ordered. (Warnock, Douglas)
|
|
Filing
210
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for separate and final judgment and for a stay of 7-Elevens counterclaims and third-party claims (Docket No. 204 ) is DENIED. Defenda nt is directed to file its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims on or before Friday, November 18, 2022. Plaintiffs shall file their memorandum in opposition on or before Friday, December 9, 2022.So ordered. (Warnock, Douglas)
|
|
Filing
203
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 112 ) is ALLOWED. Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and class certificatio n (Docket No. 117 , 118 ) are DENIED. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report on defendant's pending counterclaims against plaintiffs and third-party defendants on or before Wednesday, October 19. 2022. So ordered.(Warnock, Douglas)
|
|
Filing
181
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In compliance with the Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dated November 13, 2020, the foregoing statement of reasons is hereby entered in support of the Courts Separate and Final Judgment entered October 7, 2020.So ordered. (Vieira, Leonardo)
|
|
Filing
169
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the motion of defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. for summary judgment (Docket No. 112 ) is ALLOWED. The motions of plaintiffs for summary judgment and class cer tification (Docket Nos. 117 , 118 ) are DENIED.The parties are directed to submit a joint status report on defendant's pending counter-claims against plaintiffs and third-party defendants on or before Thursday, September 24, 2020.So ordered. (Vieira, Leonardo)
|
|
Filing
81
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaims and third-party complaint (Docket No. 62 ) is DENIED and plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a lateanswer (Docket No. 68 ) is ALLOWED.So ordered. (Vieira, Leonardo)
|
|
Filing
49
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for remand (Docket No. 18 ) is DENIED, defendant 7-Eleven's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 19 ) is DENIED, defendants Mary Cadigan's and Andrew Brothers' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20 ) is ALLOWED, and plaintiffs' emergency motion to enjoin defendant from obtaining releases from putative class members by plaintiff (Docket No. 33 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.So ordered.(Franklin, Yvonne)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
