Hicock, II v. Casino One Corp.

Hicock, II v. Casino One Corp.

Plaintiff:	William A Hicock, II
Defendant:	Casino One Corp.
Case Number:	4:2013cv02407
Filed:	November 27, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge:	E. Richard Webber
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
August 14, 2014	Filing 29 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that "Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" [ECF No. 22 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 14, 2014. (BRP)
January 27, 2014	Filing 15 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand with Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support and Order to Remand [ECF No. 13 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are granted twenty (20) days from the date of this order to submit to this Court a joint stipulation that is substantially similar in all respects to the stipulation approved in Workman, 749 F.Supp. at 1010. If the parties submit such a stipulation, this Court will reconsider the Motion to Remand. If such a stipulation is not timely submitted, this case will proceed.(Response to Court due by 2/16/2014.) Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on January 27, 2014. (BRP)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 14, 2014

Filing 29 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that "Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" [ECF No. 22 ] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 14, 2014. (BRP)

January 27, 2014

Filing 15 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand with Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support and Order to Remand [ECF No. 13 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are granted twenty (20) days from the date of this order to submit to this Court a joint stipulation that is substantially similar in all respects to the stipulation approved in Workman, 749 F.Supp. at 1010. If the parties submit such a stipulation, this Court will reconsider the Motion to Remand. If such a stipulation is not timely submitted, this case will proceed.(Response to Court due by 2/16/2014.) Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on January 27, 2014. (BRP)

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: Hicock, II v. Casino One Corp.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: William A Hicock, II
Represented By:	Erika J. Wentzel
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: Casino One Corp.
Represented By:	Brian M. O'Neal
Represented By:	John J. Marino, Jr.
Represented By:	James N. Foster, Jr.
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.

Why Is My Information Online?