LaCurtis v. Express Medical Transporters, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Eighth Circuit Missouri Eastern District LaCurtis v. Express Medical Transporters, Inc.

LaCurtis v. Express Medical Transporters, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Michael LaCurtis
Defendant:	Express Medical Transporters, Inc.
Case Number:	4:2015cv00427
Filed:	March 9, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge:	Audrey G. Fleissig
Nature of Suit:	Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 5
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
July 1, 2016	Filing 66 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to amend and certify for interlocutory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and for a stay of proceedings pending appeal is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 58 .) This Court's May 31, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 56 ) is amended to certify the following questions, as modified, for immediate interlocutory appeal: [SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending resolution of Defendants' application to the Court of Appeals for interlocutory review, and pending the review itself, if Defendants' application is granted. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on July 1, 2016. (BRP)
May 31, 2016	Filing 56 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 38 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 34 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 05/31/2016. (KCB)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 1, 2016

Filing 66 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to amend and certify for interlocutory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and for a stay of proceedings pending appeal is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 58 .) This Court's May 31, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 56 ) is amended to certify the following questions, as modified, for immediate interlocutory appeal: [SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending resolution of Defendants' application to the Court of Appeals for interlocutory review, and pending the review itself, if Defendants' application is granted. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on July 1, 2016. (BRP)

May 31, 2016

Filing 56 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 38 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 34 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 05/31/2016. (KCB)

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: LaCurtis v. Express Medical Transporters, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael LaCurtis
Represented By:	Daniel W. Craig
Represented By:	Brendan J. Donelon
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: Express Medical Transporters, Inc.
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?