Sono Irish Inc v. Town of Surfside Beach et al

Plaintiff: Sono Irish Inc
Defendant: Town of Surfside Beach, Edwin L Booth, Cecil Chandler and William Rempfer
Case Number: 4:2013cv00249
Filed: January 25, 2013
Court: South Carolina District Court
Office: Florence Office
County: Horry
Presiding Judge: R Bryan Harwell
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Notice of Removal
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
May 21, 2015 99 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' [ECF## 64 , 65 , 66 , and 72 ] motions for summary judgment. Specifically, the Court grants Defendants' motions for summary judgment as to all federa l claims including the claims for denial of equal protection, substantive due process, procedural due process, tortious interference with contractual relations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff's attempt to assert a First Amendment retaliation claim fails as the claim was not pled in the complaint and cannot be asserted at this late date. The Court denies the motions for summary judgment as to any state law claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations and civil conspiracy. The remaining state law claims for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations and civil conspiracy are hereby REMANDED to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, South Carolina. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 5/21/2015. (hcic, )
October 7, 2014 60 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 53 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/7/2014. (hcic, )
November 25, 2013 34 Opinion or Order of the Court CONSENT CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/25/2013. (hcic)

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: Sono Irish Inc v. Town of Surfside Beach et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sono Irish Inc
Represented By: John M Leiter
Represented By: Kirk Douglas Thornton
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Town of Surfside Beach
Represented By: Douglas Charles Baxter
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Edwin L Booth
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cecil Chandler
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: William Rempfer
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 [ 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?