Olson et al v. Desserts on the Boulevard, LLC et al

Plaintiff: Chris Olson, Corey Bishop, Joshua Harvey and Matthew Shucart
Defendant: Desserts on the Boulevard, LLC, Deverick A. Miller and Catina Diane Watson-Miller
Case Number: 4:2012cv01629
Filed: September 11, 2012
Court: Missouri Eastern District Court
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge: Charles A. Shaw
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201
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
January 28, 2014 102 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Order Holding Defendants in Contempt of Court is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 100]. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 1/28/14. (JWJ)
March 31, 2015 141 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery in aid of execution is GRANTED. [Doc. 138]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller shall answ er plaintiffs' Interrogatories and provide documents in response to the Requests for Production of Documents, without objection, and send their Answers and documents to plaintiffs' counsel by April 10, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller, both by first-class mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, at 5733 Clemens Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63112. ( Response to Court due by 4/10/2015.). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 3/31/2015. (MRC)
May 5, 2015 144 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller shall appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for failure to answer Interrogatories and to prod uce records as ordered by the Court on March 31, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing is set for Thursday, May 28, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 17-South of the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse, at which defendants Watson-Mil ler and Miller may show cause why civil contempt sanctions should not be imposed against them for failure to comply with the Courts Memorandum and Order of March 31, 2015. Because incarceration is a possible civil contempt sanction, the defendants have the right to representation by counsel. Failure to appear for the hearing as ordered may subject defendants Watson-Miller and Miller to arrest by the United States Marshals Service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshal's S ervice is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller personally, at 5733 Clemens Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63112, or wherever each may be found (copies forwarded to US Marshals for service). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 5/5/15. (KXS)
September 30, 2013 54 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. [Doc. 48] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to docket plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, which was submitted as an attachment to the motion to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as moot. [Doc. 35] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/30/2013. (NCL)

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Olson et al v. Desserts on the Boulevard, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chris Olson
Represented By: Aaron E. Schwartz
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 ]
Plaintiff: Corey Bishop
Represented By: Aaron E. Schwartz
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 ]
Plaintiff: Joshua Harvey
Represented By: Aaron E. Schwartz
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 ]
Plaintiff: Matthew Shucart
Represented By: Aaron E. Schwartz
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: Desserts on the Boulevard, LLC
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: Deverick A. Miller
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: Catina Diane Watson-Miller
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.