Loyless v. Oliveira et al
| Corinthian Loyless |
| Vander Oliveira, Jane Oliveira and Stephen Oliveira |
| 1:2009cv00239 |
| September 9, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
| Chattanooga Office |
| Bradley |
| Curtis L Collier |
| Susan K Lee |
| Plaintiff |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 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
86
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion for Attorney Fees; adopting the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendations re 83 ;The Court awards the plaintiff a total of $31,579.80 in attorney fees. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 3/8/2012. (AWH, )
|
|
Filing
75
JUDGMENT ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 56 Report and Recommendations ; granting 71 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE the case. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 8/23/11. (JGK, )
|
|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs 44 motion for default judgment Plaintiffs claims against Stephen are scheduled to proceed to trial on October 11, 2011, however, the Court finds reserving ruling on issue s of damages until after trial inappropriate. Vander and Janes dilatory tactics have already prolonged this litigation to the prejudice of the plaintiff and require the Courts immediate action. The Court also concludes resolving the amount of damage s against Vander and Jane does not interfere with Stephens ability to proceed to trial on issues of liability. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on Plaintiffs wrongful termination and retaliation claims against Vander and Jane. Now, because t he Court grants entry of default judgment, Plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations against these two defendants are taken as true and the claims considered established as a matter of law. Because Plaintiff cannot provide nor ascertain a sum certain for recovery sought against Defendants Vander and Jane on his wrongful termination and retaliation claims, as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), the Court must take necessary steps to determine the appropriate amount of damages. This Court previo usly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his overtime and minimum wage violation claims against Vander and Jane. Plaintiff still has the burden of proving damages on these claims. Therefore, the Court hereby REFERS this matter to Un ited States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee to conduct such evidentiary hearings as she deems appropriate, and to issue a report and recommendation for this Courts consideration before the Court enters final judgment in the matter. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 12/28/2010. (BJL, )Serviced to Vander Oliveira and Jane Oliveira Modified on 12/28/2010 (BJL, ).
|
|
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM. An Order shall enter Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 9/28/10. (JGK, )
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 7/12/10. (JGK, )
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion to Continue; Defendant Vander Oliveiras motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 17] is DENIED. Defendant Vander Oliveiras motion for a continuance [Doc. 17] is GRANTED IN PART finding a 30 to 45 day continuance is not warranted. The hearing, currently set for June 24, 2010, is hereby RESCHEDULED and the hearing on damages will be held on Friday, July 9, at 10:30 a.m. (EASTERN). Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 06/21/2010. (KRS, )
|
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 Tennessee Eastern 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.
