Prasad v. A.O. Smith Electrical Products Co. et al
| Bellur G. Shiva Prasad |
| A.O. Smith Electrical Products Co. |
| 3:2015cv00150 |
| April 23, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| SHELBY |
| Michael J. Newman |
| Walter H Rice |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Age) |
| 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
83
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: TERMINATION ENTRY - The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if necessary. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 4/25/16. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
74
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 69 ); OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE (DOC. # 59 ) - Plaintiff is once-again cautioned, however, that continued failure to abide by court orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 2/23/2016. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
47
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF - It is improper to communicate or attempt to communicate ex parte or privately with a United States District Judge or United States Magistrate Judge concerning pending litigation, including telephone calls to staff in the Jud ges chambers. Any and all communication with the Court must be through a written pleading or motion submitted to the Clerk of Court and served on opposing counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/28/15. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
46
DISCOVERY ORDER -. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/22/15. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
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
| Search for this case: Prasad v. A.O. Smith Electrical Products Co. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bellur G. Shiva Prasad | |
| 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: A.O. Smith Electrical Products Co. | |
| Represented By: | Brett E Buhl |
| Represented By: | Robert Frederick Seidler |
| 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.
