Roman v. Apple Inc.
Plaintiff: Kentrell D. Roman
Defendant: Apple Inc.
Case Number: 2:2017cv02477
Filed: July 10, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
Office: Memphis Office
County: Shelby
Presiding Judge: Charmiane G. Claxton
Presiding Judge: John T. Fowlkes
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 1, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendations re 15 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's motion is DENIED at this time. The Clerk of Court is directed to reissue a summons to Defendant and to deliver the summons to the U.S. Marshal for service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). Signed by Judge Mark S. Norris on 4/1/2019. (Norris, Mark)
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: Roman v. Apple Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kentrell D. Roman
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: Apple Inc.
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?