Foote v. TitleMax of South Carolina Inc
Plaintiff: Kanesha Foote
Defendant: TitleMax of South Carolina Inc
Case Number: 0:2014cv02038
Filed: May 23, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Rock Hill Office
County: Chester
Presiding Judge: Joseph F Anderson
Referring Judge: Thomas E Rogers
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 19, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 19 CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 12/19/2014.(dsto, )
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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Foote v. TitleMax of South Carolina Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: TitleMax of South Carolina Inc
Represented By: Thomas Chase Samples
Represented By: Andreas Neal Satterfield, Jr
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: Kanesha Foote
Represented By: Janet Elizabeth Rhodes
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?