Taylor v. North Carolina Department of Revenue
Plaintiff: Bridget Taylor
Defendant: North Carolina Department of Revenue
Case Number: 3:2012cv00860
Filed: December 29, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Office: Charlotte Office
County: Alexander
Presiding Judge: David S. Cayer
Presiding Judge: Max O. Cogburn
Nature of Suit: Labor: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
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
September 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER granting 79 Motion for New Trial Jury Trial set for 10/19/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. This matter is calendared for a jury trial, limited to the issue of compensatory damages. While the default will be a jury trial, the parties should consider whether they desire a bench or jury trial on this limited matter.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 9/28/2015. (chh)
August 4, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER granting 76 Motion for Extension of Time, and the time for filing a Motion for a New Trial on the Issue of Damages is ENLARGED up to and inclusive of August 14, 2015; withdrawing 77 Motion for New Trial at plaintiffs request and without prejudice to allow the parties additional time to discuss an amicable resolution short of retrial. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 8/3/2015. (eef)
July 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 75 ORDER granting 59 MOTION for Remittitur, and the jurys award of compensatory damages is remitted to $0. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from entry of this Order to accept the courts offer of a New Trial. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 7/17/2015. (eef)
July 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 67 CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated 7/7/2015. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns.(chh)
March 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#38) be calendared for oral arguments. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 3/20/2015. (tmg)
April 1, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER denying 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction affirming 25 Memorandum and Recommendations.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 4/1/2014. (blf)
August 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER administratively denying as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss; granting 12 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (contained in Response). Plaintiff shall file Amended Complaint within 5 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 8/22/2013. (tmg)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Taylor v. North Carolina Department of Revenue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bridget Taylor
Represented By: Carlos D. Watson
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: North Carolina Department of Revenue
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?