SMITH v. BANK OF STANLY

SMITH v. BANK OF STANLY

Plaintiff:	DANIELLE C. SMITH
Defendant:	BANK OF STANLY
Case Number:	1:2009cv00951
Filed:	December 14, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	Stanly
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge:	L. PATRICK AULD
Presiding Judge:	UNASSIGNED
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 Unlawful Employment Practices
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
October 8, 2014	Filing 63 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 10/8/2014 RECOMMENDING that, pursuant to Local Rule 83.4(a)(4), the Court order Plaintiff's counsel, Bruce M. Simpson of James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., to pay Defendant $16,924.50 as a sanction for violating Local Rules 7.2(a)(2) and 26.1(b)(1).(Daniel, J)
February 11, 2011	Filing 28 MEMORANDUM OPINION & RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 2/11/2011, recommending that Defendant's Motion forSummary Judgment (Docket Entry 22 ) be GRANTED, but that, in disposing of Plaintiff& #039;s claims, the judgment reflect that Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims for events prior to March 26, 2008, are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than on the merits. Futher, it is recommended that Defendant's M otion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry 12 ) be DENIED AS MOOT. It is further recommended that, for reasons set forth above, supra, pp. 72-73 n.53, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, Bruce M. Simpson of James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., b e ordered to show cause why the Court should not sanction one or both of them pursuant to this Court's Local Rule 83.4(a) for violating: 1) Local Rule 7.2(a)(2) by including in Plaintiff's summary judgment response brief a statement of fact asserting that Defendant's "story of adulterous bathroom sex has been fabricated to try to justify further punishment calculated to eliminate its sole female Branch Manager/Vice President" (Docket Entry 26 at 13), without any citati on to the record and in the absence of any apparent evidentiary basis; and 2) Local Rule 26.1(b)(1) by behaving in an unduly argumentative and sarcastic manner during Plaintiff'sdeposition (Docket Entry 26 4 at 10; Docket Entry 26 -8 at 7). (Daniel, J)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 8, 2014

Filing 63 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNTIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 10/8/2014 RECOMMENDING that, pursuant to Local Rule 83.4(a)(4), the Court order Plaintiff's counsel, Bruce M. Simpson of James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., to pay Defendant $16,924.50 as a sanction for violating Local Rules 7.2(a)(2) and 26.1(b)(1).(Daniel, J)

February 11, 2011

Filing 28 MEMORANDUM OPINION & RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 2/11/2011, recommending that Defendant's Motion forSummary Judgment (Docket Entry 22 ) be GRANTED, but that, in disposing of Plaintiff& #039;s claims, the judgment reflect that Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims for events prior to March 26, 2008, are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than on the merits. Futher, it is recommended that Defendant's M otion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry 12 ) be DENIED AS MOOT. It is further recommended that, for reasons set forth above, supra, pp. 72-73 n.53, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, Bruce M. Simpson of James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., b e ordered to show cause why the Court should not sanction one or both of them pursuant to this Court's Local Rule 83.4(a) for violating: 1) Local Rule 7.2(a)(2) by including in Plaintiff's summary judgment response brief a statement of fact asserting that Defendant's "story of adulterous bathroom sex has been fabricated to try to justify further punishment calculated to eliminate its sole female Branch Manager/Vice President" (Docket Entry 26 at 13), without any citati on to the record and in the absence of any apparent evidentiary basis; and 2) Local Rule 26.1(b)(1) by behaving in an unduly argumentative and sarcastic manner during Plaintiff'sdeposition (Docket Entry 26 4 at 10; Docket Entry 26 -8 at 7). (Daniel, J)

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SMITH v. BANK OF STANLY
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: DANIELLE C. SMITH
Represented By:	BRUCE MERLE SIMPSON
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: BANK OF STANLY
Represented By:	JEFFREY PHILLIPS MACHARG
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?