HARTQUIST v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. A/K/A EMERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY et al
| SCOTT L. HARTQUIST |
| EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., THE EMERSON ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY and EMERSON APPLIANCES & TOOLS, INC. |
| 1:2011cv01067 |
| December 2, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Guilford |
| L. PATRICK AULD |
| N. C. TILLEY |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330 |
| Both |
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
78
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE on 03/30/2017, that Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 72 is DENIED. FURTHER that Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 70 is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. (Taylor, Abby)
|
|
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment 65 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff's 3rd, 4th, and 5th Causes of Action are DISMISSED, and Plaintiff's 1st Cause of Action is DISM ISSED as set out. Only claims remaining are Plaintiff's 2nd Cause of Action as set out. On or before May 2, 2016, Parties may file cross motions for judgment as matter of law as to remaining claims, with responses and replies due as provided in the Local Rules. Signed by MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE on 3/31/2016. (Powell, Gloria)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
