Allen-Smith v. Vilsack
| Queen Allen-Smith |
| Tom J. Vilsack |
| 4:2013cv00027 |
| January 7, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| John A. Ross |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act |
| 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
37
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In light of the Court's Order granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 31 ) and Plaintiff's subsequent filing of her Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 36 ),IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/26/15. (JWD)
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until Monday, May 19, 2014, within which to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 20 , or the Court will rule upon Defendant's unopposed Motion to Dismiss.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/12/14. (LGK)
|
|
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until Monday, March 31, 2014, within which to file an amended complaint, or the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs Rehabilitation Act claims in Count I and II with prejudice and close this case. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/21/14. (JWD)
|
|
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 2 is GRANTED as follows. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ADA claims asserted in Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice for la ck of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Rehabilitation Act claims asserted in Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendan t's motion to dismiss Count III is deemed a motion for summary judgment, such a motion is GRANTED, and judgment will be entered in Defendant's favor on Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint at the conclusion of this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Failure to do so will result in dismissal with prejudice of the Rehabilitation Act claims asserted in Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Complaint and closure of the case. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 2/5/14. (KXS)
|
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
| Search for this case: Allen-Smith v. Vilsack | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Queen Allen-Smith | |
| Represented By: | Melvin L. Raymond |
| 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: Tom J. Vilsack | |
| 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.
