Ritterbush v. State of Nebraska
| Jolene Ritterbush |
| State of Nebraska |
| 4:2015cv03067 |
| June 25, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 4 Lincoln Office |
| Joseph F. Bataillon |
| Thomas D. Thalken |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
81
ORDER that Counsel for the plaintiff notified the court on December 22, 2016 that the following exhibits held by the court in this matter can be destroyed. Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits for jury trial held November 14-16, 2016. Pursuant NECivR 79 .1(f) or NECrimR 55.1(g), if counsel fails to show cause why the exhibits should not be destroyed, the clerk's office is directed to destroy the above- listed exhibits 14 days from the date of this order. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER that Counsel for the defendant notified the court on December 20, 2016 that the following exhibits held by the court in this matter can be destroyed. Defendants Exhibits for jury trial held November 14-16, 2016. Pursuant NECivR 79.1(f) or NEC rimR 55.1(g), if counsel fails to show cause why the exhibits should not be destroyed, the clerk's office is directed to destroy the above- listed exhibits 14 days from the date of this order. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER that Defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge's order, Filing No. 52, is overruled. Defendant's motion for leave to file an amended answer, Filing No. 46, is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that: The defendant's motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 4 and 5, Filing No. 40 , is denied. The defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Filing No. 57 , is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
|
|
Filing
18
AMENDED ORDER SETTING FINAL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSION OF CASE - that the defendant's Motion to Alter Dates (Filing No. 17 ) is granted as set forth herein. Jury Trial set for 11/14/2016 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 3, Roman L. Hruska Federal Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, NE before Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. Pretrial Conference set for 10/14/2016 at 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (LAC)
|
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 Nebraska 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: Ritterbush v. State of Nebraska | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jolene Ritterbush | |
| Represented By: | Joy A. Shiffermiller |
| 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: State of Nebraska | |
| Represented By: | Elizabeth A. Gregory |
| Represented By: | Douglas J. Peterson |
| 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.
