Harris v. Hiester Automotive Group, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Neffertiti Harris
Defendant: Hiester Automotive Group, Inc. and John Hiester Chevrolet of Lillington, LLC
Case Number: 5:2016cv00211
Filed: April 28, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Office: Western Division Office
County: HARNETT
Presiding Judge: Terrence W. Boyle
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
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
February 22, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER denying 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 44 Motion to Dismiss; denying 47 Motion to Disqualify Counsel. ; denying 66 Motion to Dismiss. The case shall proceed to trial as herein announced. Counsel should read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by United States District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 2/21/2018. (Briggeman, N.)
October 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER - The court finds defendants motions to compel (Davis, DE 52 ; Harris, DE 51 are DENIED as moot. The court extends the time for discovery in each case until November 27, 2017, solely to allow plaintiffs separately to respond to defendants discovery requests propounded on July 17, 2017. Supplemental briefing on defendants motions for summary judgment and to dismiss is outlined above, with a brief stay imposed on existing reply time to permit any supplementation of those motions now responded to. Defendants are taxed with reasonable fees and costs of plaintiffs defenses of the instant motions to compel. Plaintiffs shall tender unified affidavit in support of reasonable fees and costs to the court no later than November 1, 2017. The court GRANTS plaintiffs motions to strike defendants replies (Davis, DE 61 ; Harris, DE 60 . Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/27/2017. (Collins, S.)
October 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER granting 55 Motion to Stay Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Counsel 47 pending further instruction from the court. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/18/2017. (Collins, S.)
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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harris v. Hiester Automotive Group, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Neffertiti Harris
Represented By: William P. Barrett
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: Hiester Automotive Group, 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 ]
Defendant: John Hiester Chevrolet of Lillington, 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 [ 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?