Ennis v. Donahoe

Ennis v. Donahoe

Plaintiff:	Hardle Ennis, Jr
Defendant:	Patrick R Donahoe
Case Number:	4:2013cv00055
Filed:	January 28, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
Office:	Tulsa Office
County:	Tulsa
Presiding Judge:	Claire V Eagan
Presiding Judge:	Frank H McCarthy
Nature of Suit:	Labor: Other
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 2617 Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 9, 2014	Filing 28 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant Patrick R. Donahoe's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 15) is denied as to dismissal for failure to serve and gr anted as to summary judgment. A separate judgment is entered herewith. ; denying 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 27 Motion for Hearing (Re: 2 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)
July 12, 2013	Filing 12 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 6) is denied. Plaintif's Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service of Process (Dkt. # 7) is granted, and plaintif f is given 30 days from entry of this Opinion and Order to comply with the service requirements of Rule 4(i). ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 8/12/2013); denying 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 7 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Re: 2 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 9, 2014

Filing 28 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant Patrick R. Donahoe's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 15) is denied as to dismissal for failure to serve and gr anted as to summary judgment. A separate judgment is entered herewith. ; denying 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 27 Motion for Hearing (Re: 2 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)

July 12, 2013

Filing 12 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 6) is denied. Plaintif's Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service of Process (Dkt. # 7) is granted, and plaintif f is given 30 days from entry of this Opinion and Order to comply with the service requirements of Rule 4(i). ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 8/12/2013); denying 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 7 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Re: 2 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)

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 Oklahoma Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ennis v. Donahoe
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Patrick R Donahoe
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 ]
Plaintiff: Hardle Ennis, Jr
Represented By:	Dee Edward Dismukes
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?