GAREY, et al v. JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C. et al
| JAMES WEAVER GAREY, WILLIAM PARKER GAREY and AARON KENT CRUTHIS |
| JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C., MARCARI, RUSSOTTO, SPENCER & BALABAN, P.C., RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, L.L.P, WALLACE PIERCE, PLLC, R. BRADLEY VAN LANINGHAM and LANIER LAW GROUP, P.A. |
| 1:2016cv00542 |
| May 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Alamance |
| LORETTA C. BIGGS |
| JOE L. WEBSTER |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
338
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 03/24/2021, that Plaintiffs' Motion to Revise Order on Summary Judgment Motions, (ECF No. 333 ), is DENIED. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
331
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 01/22/2021, that Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Declaration of Rhonda Harper, (ECF No. 288 ), is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff' s Motion to Strike the Declaration of Victoria Nourse, (ECF No. 290 ), is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the declaration advances an interpretation of a statute or applies expertise to resolve questions of how the law should be applied in the instant case and DENIED IN PART as to the remainder of the document. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 262 ), is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Andrews-Lanier Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 264 ), the Fox Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 270 ), and the Womble Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 272 ) are each GRANTED. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
313
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 9/28/2020, that the Fox Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 188 ), is GRANTED as to the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief and DENIED as to whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Article III standing and the availability of liquidated damages. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
297
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 9/1/2020, that Plaintiffs' Motion (Docket Entry 238 ) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the First Sealing Motion (Docket Entry 240 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: the First Sealing Motion is granted except insofar as it seeks to redact the information contained in the deposit accounts schedule (Schedule 1) on page 339 of the Discovery Responses (see Docket Entry 239 -3 at 339). On or before September 8, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a corrected version of the relevant financial statement (id. at 338-40) that removes such redaction. FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Sealing Motion (Docket Entry 246 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: the Second Sealing Motion is granted except insofar as it seeks redaction of (i) any information other than the specific monetary amounts identified on pages 2, 3, and 7 of the Reply, (ii) references in Har dee's deposition to the insolvent nature of Hardee's firm on its 2018 balance sheet, and (iii) the publically available exhibits to Marcari's deposition (see Docket Entry 247 -3 at 96-101). On or before September 8, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a corrected version of their Reply (Docket Entry 245 ) and Fox Defendants shall file corrected versions of the Hardee deposition (Docket Entry 252 -1) and Marcari deposition exhibits (Docket Entry 252 -4). (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
284
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 7/23/2002, that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, (ECF No. 184 ), and Defendants' Motions to Strike Plaintiffs' Declarations in Support of Class Certification, (ECF Nos. 202 ; 204 ), are each DENIED. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
236
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 4/6/2020, that the Fox Defendants' Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 207 ), Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 217 ), and Third Party Kevin Creech's Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 224 ) are GRANTED. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
216
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 01/08/2020, that Moving Defendants' motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 138 ), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED to the extent Moving Defendants seek modification of the Court's September 29th Order denying Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court has corrected, in its November 15 , 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the failure in its September 29th Memorandum Opinion to apply the Central Hudson analysis to Moving Defendants' speech to determine whether the DPPA's restriction on such speech is constitutionally permissible. This error, however, does not alter the ultimate ruling in the September 29th Order. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
211
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 12/20/2019, that the Motion (Docket Entry 170 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: on or before January 10, 2020, W. Garey, Aaron Cr uthis, Amanda Reilly, Adilah McNeil, C. Clevenger, and Justin Brent Blakeslee must (1) serve the specified stipulations (see Docket Entry 173 at 10) to Interrogatories 7-11; (2) serve responses to Interrogatories 12 and 13; and (3) identify each common issue of fact that they contend can be resolved on a classwide basis and each individualized issue of fact that they contend cannot be resolved on a classwide basis. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
142
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 11/15/2018, that Moving Defendants' pleading entitled, "Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Ruling on their Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings," (ECF No. 111 ), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED to the extent Moving Defendants seek modification of the Court's September 29 Order denying Moving Defendants ' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, and to the extent that it seeks judgment on the pleadings in favor of Moving Defendants. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court has corrected the failure in its September 29 Memorandu m Opinion to apply the Central Hudson analysis to Moving Defendants' speech to determine whether the DPPA's restriction on such speech is constitutionally permissible. This error, however, does not alter the ultimate ruling in the September 29 Order. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
131
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 94 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; DENYING 102 Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses; DENYING 104 Motion to Strike 101 Reply to Response to Motion; and GRANTING 114 First MOTION to Supplement Complaint. Signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 09/29/2018. (Samuel-Priestley, Tina)
|
|
Filing
93
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 60 , 62 , and 79 Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by SEAN A. COLE, CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP, JAMES S. FARRIN, CHARLES HARDEE, G. WAYNE HARDEE, HARDEE & HARDEE, LLP, JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C., LISA LANIER, LANIER LAW GROUP, P.A., DONALD W. MARCARI, MARCARI, RUSSOTTO, SPENCER & BALABAN, P.C., JARED PIERCE, RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, L.L.P, CHRIS ROBERTS, R. BRADLEY VAN LANINGHAM, VAN LANINGHAM & ASSOCIA TES, PLLC, WALLACE PIERCE, PLLC; BENJAMIN T. COCHRAN, TED A. GREVE, HARDISON & COCHRAN, PLLC, TED A. GREVE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.; and MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. DEMAYO, L.L.P. Signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 9/29/2017. (Solomon, Dianne)
|
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.
