Higgins v. Vitran Express Inc. et al
Reginald D. Higgins, Sr. |
Vitran Express Inc. and Parker-Hannifin Inc. |
1:2009cv00228 |
April 7, 2009 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Civil Rights: Other Office |
HAMILTON |
Susan J. Dlott |
Timothy S Hogan |
None |
Federal Question |
42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 87 ORDER by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott granting 77 Motion for Summary Judgment by defendatn; denying 80 Motion for Summary Judgment by plaintiff; adopting Report and Recommendations re 82 . (vp) |
Filing 57 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 44 and 45 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, Defendant Vitran Expresss motion to strike plaintiffs putative amended complaint is GRANTED (Doc. 37). Defendant Vitran Expresss alternative partia l motion to dismiss plaintiffs putative amended complaint is DENIED as moot.Defendant Parker-Hannifins motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint (Doc. 40) is GRANTED.Defendant Parker-Hannifins motion for attorney fees (Doc. 40) is DENIED.. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott on 7/14/10. (wam1) |
Filing 36 ORDER by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott granting 16 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations 29 . (vp) |
Filing 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendant Parker Hannifin's 16 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted. Objections to R&R due by 11/5/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy S Hogan on 10/19/2009. (art) |
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 Ohio Southern 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.