Areizaga v. ADW Corporation

Plaintiff: Efrain Areizaga
Defendant: ADW Corporation
Case Number: 3:2014cv02899
Filed: August 13, 2014
Court: Texas Northern District Court
Office: Dallas Office
County: Denton
Presiding Judge: Jorge A Solis
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2
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
February 12, 2018 Opinion or Order 177 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 171 Motion to Set Aside Judgment filed by Efrain Areizaga. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 2/12/2018) (aaa)
June 28, 2016 Opinion or Order 138 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order Staying Discovery (Dkt. No. 120 ) and GRANTS Defendant's Emergency Rule 56(d) Motion for Continuance (Dkt. No. 123 ). The Court ORDERS the parties (1 ) to file a joint status report no later than 30 days after the later of (a) the Court's rulings on Defendant's Motion for a Ruling on Discovery of Plaintiff's Electronically Stored Information (Dkt. No. 101 ) and Motion for Reconside ration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. No. 100 ) or (2) the completion of Plaintiff's deposition and (2) to provide in that report a date by which Defendant should be ordered to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 114 ) after having an opportunity to conduct discovery essential to justify ADW's opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment as described above. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 6/28/2016) (ran)
June 22, 2016 Opinion or Order 131 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court finds that the 107 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 6/22/2016) (ran)
June 21, 2016 Opinion or Order 130 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant ADW Corporation's Application for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. No. 94 ) and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)(3) and 37(a)(5), ORDERS Plaintiff Efrain Areizaga to, by 9/1/2016, pay Defendant ADW Corporation its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 6/21/2016) (ran)
April 4, 2016 Opinion or Order 77 Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court grants in part and denies in part 54 Motion to Compel Written Discovery Responses and Production of Documents, and grants in part and denies in part 60 Motion for Protective Order filed by Efrain Areizaga. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 4/4/2016) (mem)

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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Areizaga v. ADW Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Efrain Areizaga
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: ADW Corporation
Represented By: Jordan C Campbell
Represented By: Danielle Alexis Clarkson
Represented By: John R Herring
Represented By: Norlynn B Price
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?