Franklin v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.
| Laura Smith, Daniel Spradling, Anthony Watson, Linda Cotton, Michael Fink, Pamela Franklin-Hamilton, David Kennedy, Demetrius Rich, Kevin Saeger, Katina Scott, Raymond Wood, David Sherrod, Mark Hughes, Jamie Bailey, John Siebert, Darrian Oliver, Scott Johnson, Michael Hall, James Perry, Marilyn Lee-Taylor, Alimitric Stewart, Joseph Pavlik, Linda Schreck, Lizett Simmons, Diane Franklin, Deirder Arnold, Demarcus Arnold, Deborah Bailey, Jack Bell, Terrel Borders, Jose Castorena, Kenneth Clay, Cecil Coats, Paula Cranmer, Dietra Cunningham, Hazel Doss, Gary Eastridge, Larry Fellows, Glenn Ford, Amy Gavlick, Tanya Armstrong-Gines, Clifton Gordon, Archie Green, Stephanie Hamiel, Lori Hargrove, Richard Hargrove, Martisa Holmon, Michael Hull, Tonja Hull, Joseph Jennemann, Natoya Johnson, Diane Joyce, Dennis Lash, Jennifer Lippert, Maxine Love, Timothy Lovett, Ronald Martin, Ronald Martin, Jr., Thomas Martin, Jack Maysey, Myron Minner, Darrel Mueth, Joan Nischbach, Antronette Parker, Curtis Pettis, Craig Rapert, Perez Rayford, Diane Rhodes, Tyree Richards and Walter Robinson |
| Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. |
| 4:2012cv00307 |
| February 17, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| Charles A. Shaw |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
152
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.s Motion for Bill of Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above. Doc. 151 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall tax costs in favor of defendant Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. and against the fifty-four plaintiffs listed in footnote 1 of the Judgment dated February 25, 2014, jointly and severally, in the amount of Thirty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Nine Dollars and Twelve Cents ($36,509.12). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 4/7/2014. (RAK)
|
|
Filing
149
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. [Doc. 135]An appropriate judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order. re: 135 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 2/25/14. (JWJ)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. [Doc. 120] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims of plaintiffs Dierder Arnold, Jamie Bailey, Jose Castorena, Paula Cranmer, Hazel Doss, Michael Holl, Mark Hu ghes, Scott Johnson, Timothy Lovett, Joan Nischbach, Darrian Oliver, Antionette Parker, James Perry, Curtis Pettis, Kevin Saeger, and David Sherrod in this matter are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/10/2013. (NCL)
|
|
Filing
102
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Relief from the Memorandum and Order of December 28, 2012 under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., is DENIED. [Doc. 89] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Thomas Carter, II, shall pay the sum of One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($1,925.00) to the firm McMahon Berger, P.C. and file a written Notice that he has done so, by February 15, 2013. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on the Courts own motion, t he Memorandum and Order of December 28, 2012, is modified as follows: Plaintiffs attorney Mr. Thomas Carter, II, is relieved of the obligation to attend a Continuing Legal Education program or seminar on federal practice and procedure, and instead is HEREBY ORDERED to read this Courts (1) Local Rules, (2) Administrative Procedures for Case Management/Electronic Case Filing, (3) ADR Fact Sheets Nos. 1-10, and (4) the undersigneds Judges Requirements. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr . Carter shall file a written Notice that he has read each of these items; the Notice shall include the dates and amount of time spent reading each item, and shall be signed under penalty of perjury. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Carter sh all read the foregoing documents and file the Notice required by this Order by April 30, 2013. Failure to comply fully and timely with this Order may result in the imposition of further sanctions.(Response to Court due by 2/15/2013.) Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 1/28/2013. (KSM)
|
|
Filing
79
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. [Doc. 73] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorney Thomas Carter, II, shall pay the sum of One Thousand Nine Hundred Tw enty-Five Dollars ($1,925.00) to the firm McMahon Berger, P.C., within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, and shall file a written Notice in this case stating that he has done so. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that attorney Thomas Car ter, II, shall attend a Continuing Legal Education program or seminar on the topic of federal practice and procedure, no later than April 30, 2013, and shall file an affidavit with the Court describing his compliance with this Order. IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED that the First Amended Petition is STRICKEN from the record. [Doc. 36] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file a pleading titled Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, that shal l (1) omit the names of plaintiffs Michael Hughes and Michael Hall; (2) use the correct spelling of each plaintiffs name, so that all of the plaintiffs names are the same as shown in the Reily Affidavit; and (3) correct the typographical and gramm atical errors that appear throughout the First Amended Petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint shall not assert or include any of the claims that were dismissed by the Memorandum and Order of August 9, 2012, and the refore should only include the negligent misrepresentation claims from Counts III and VI, and the fifteen plaintiffs Missouri Human Rights Act age discrimination claims from Count VIII. (Response to Court due by 1/11/2013., Affidavit due by 4/30/2013.). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 12/28/2012. (KSM)
|
|
Filing
70
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Memorandum and Order of August 9, 2012 is vacated. [Doc. 68] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants amended motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part as moot, and DENIED in part; the motion is GRANTED as to Counts I, II, IV, V and VIII, DENIED as moot as to Count VII, and DENIED as to Counts III and VI. [Doc. 43] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/9/2012. (NCL)
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay previously imposed in this matter is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is DENIED. [Doc. 23] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their response to defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition by June 28, 2012. ( Response to Court due by 6/28/2012.) Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 6/7/2012. (KSM)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER CONCERNING REMOVAL -.....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen(14) days of the date of this Order, defendant shall file a memorandum, including citation to any relevant authority and specific facts or evidence, to establish by a pre ponderance of the evidence: (1) the citizenship of each plaintiff listed in the removed Petition at the time of filing and at the time of removal; (2) the citizenship of each additional plaintiff listed in the Amended Petition, including those whose names have been changed from the removed Petition; and (3) that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 with respect to at least one plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have ten (10) days thereafter in which to file any reply. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other proceedings in this case are STAYED pending further order of this Court. Response to Court due by 4/30/2012.. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 4/16/2012. (MRC)
|
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 Missouri 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.
