HARRIS v. MIDAS et al
| HANNAH HARRIS |
| MIDAS, AUTO SYSTEMS CENTERS, INC., KATZ MIDAS FRANCHISES, MIDAS AUTO SERVICE EXPERTS, MIDAS AUTO & TIRE EXPERTS, MAX AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, KEN SHICK, TRENT KIGHT, TBC CORPORATION, MIDAS, INC. and MIDAS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION |
| 2:2017cv00095 |
| January 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Cathy Bissoon |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
171
MEMORANDUM ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, (Doc. 143 ), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and costs and fees are entered, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, in the amount of $615,867.07. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 2/20/20. (wss)
|
|
Filing
166
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 152 Defendants' Motion for Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 12/16/19. (wss)
|
|
Filing
130
MEMORANDUM ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS. For the reasons set forth in the filing at this docket entry, Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Contents of an Illegal Audio Recording (Doc. 91 ) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to P reclude "Admission" Testimony of Anthony DiGuilio (Doc. 93 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Proposed Expert, Susan Strauss (Doc. 95 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Bifurcate Tr ial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 42(b) (Doc. 97 ) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Tort Claims (Doc. 99 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant and Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404 (Doc. 101 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Michael E. Thase, M.D. (Doc. 103 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 10/18/19. (wss)
|
|
Filing
78
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Midas International Corporation, Midas, Inc. and the TBC Corporation, (Doc. 64 ), is GRANTED. The Motion for Summary Judgment by all Defendants as to the alleged conduct of Defendant Trent Kight in Count VI, (Doc. 68 ), is GRANTED. See contents of this filing. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 3/29/19. (wss)
|
|
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum & Order filed herewith, the TBC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30 ) is DENIED. An Order setting an initial Case Management Conference will follow. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 11/8/17. (kg)
|
|
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum & Order filed herewith, the TBC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7 ) is GRANTED and the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10 ) is DENIED. Consistent with the for egoing, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims against the TBC Defendants. If Plaintiff wishes to file an Amended Complaint, she must do so on or before 8/24/2017. Should no Amended Complaint be filed by 8/24/2017, the Court will di smiss all claims against the TBC Defendants WITH PREJUDICE. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint (or, if no Amended Complaint is filed, to the Complaint) on or before 9/7/2017. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 8/10/2017. (kg)
|
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 Pennsylvania Western 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.
