Scott et al v. Thomas and King Inc
| Anthony Scott, Eric Taylor, Jeff January, Aaron Cosby, Kianna Abrams, Ricky Stinnett, Angela Nicholson, Bobby Buford, Ashley Scott, Asia Averhart, Chikira Abrams, Ryan McAfee, Antwan Johnson, Tanela Darby, Frank Hearns and Courtney Sue Portis |
| Thomas and King Inc |
| 3:2009cv00147 |
| April 15, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Civil Rights: Accomodations Office |
| CLARK |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Plaintiff |
| Diversity |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal |
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
86
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING THOMAS & KING'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFFS' NEGLIGENCE CLAIM (Doc. # 82 ) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 9/9/10. (bac1)
|
|
Filing
79
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THOMAS & KING'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. # 78 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 7/9/10. (bac1)
|
|
Filing
77
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART THOMAS & KING'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(Doc. # 41 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 6/28/10. (bac1)
|
|
Filing
69
PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER - Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to Plaintiffs Kianna Abrams, Tanela Darby, Frank Hearns, Jeff January, Aaron Scott, and Ricky Stinnett without prejudice (Doc. No. 68)is granted and the claims of these Pla intiffs are dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), on condition that, if any of these Plaintiffs re-files the claims made herein, he or she shall at the time of re-filing, reimburse Defendant for the expenses of preparing for his or her deposition in this case. Defendant was directed to file a statement of those expenses by May 23, 2010 (extended to May 24, 2010, by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6), but failed to do so. Any calculation of expenses will this awaited any refiling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/25/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
67
DECISION AND ORDER - This case is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 22). The portion of the Motion seeking to compel additional paper discovery is denied. If the six Plaintiffs who wish to dismissed without prejudice f ile a motion seeking that relief not later than May 23, 2010, the Court is prepared to grant that motion on condition that, if they re-file their lawsuit, they pay Defendants expenses for preparing for their depositions contemporaneously with any suc h re-filing. Defendant shall file a claim for the amount of such expenses not later than the same date. Plaintiff Anthony Scott's failure to attend and to communicate with counsel is adequately explained and excused by his military obligations. Accordingly, no sanctions will be imposed on Anthony Scott provided he presents himself for deposition at his counsel's office at 9:30 a.m. on June 1, 2010, or at such other time as counsel for the parties may agree in writing or the Court may order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/13/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
21
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER TAKE DEPOSITIONS BY TELEPHONE - On Motion of the Defendant for Reconsideration and for good cause shown, to wit, Mr. Scanlon's willingness to come to Dayton, Ohio, to be deposed so that the deposi tion can be conducted face-to-face, the Court finds that the basis of its Order permitting him to be deposed by telephone has ceased to exist. It is accordingly ordered that the Scanlon deposition be conducted at the office of Plaintiff's counsel in Dayton, Ohio, on March 24, 2010, commencing at 4:00 p.m. and continuing for not more than two hours. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/12/2010. (kpf1)
|
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.
