Golden v. Mirabile Investment Corporation
Plaintiff: Derico Golden
Defendant: Mirabile Investment Corporation
Case Number: 2:2014cv02463
Filed: June 18, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
Office: Memphis Office
County: Shelby
Presiding Judge: Tu M. Pham
Presiding Judge: Samuel H. Mays
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER denying 91 Motion to Correct or Modify the Record. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 08/31/2017. (Mays, Samuel)
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 Tennessee Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Golden v. Mirabile Investment Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Derico Golden
Represented By: Kathleen L. Caldwell
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 ]
Defendant: Mirabile Investment Corporation
Represented By: W. Kerby Bowling, II
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?