Gregory v. FedEx Corporation et al
Plaintiff: Bradley D. Gregory
Defendant: FedEx Corporation and FedEx Ground Package System Inc
Case Number: 2:2010cv00630
Filed: December 23, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office: Norfolk Office
County: Out of State
Presiding Judge: Douglas E. Miller
Presiding Judge: Raymond A. Jackson
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 201
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
June 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 314 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 312 Report and Recommendations; it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant 9;s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 290, is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiffs' DJA claims and FLSA minimum wage claims, and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiffs' fraud, rescission, and FLSA overtime claims. Plaintiffs' DJA claims and FLS A minimum wage claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice 290 Motion to Dismiss.; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Sever and Transfer, ECF No. 294, is GRANTED IN PART as to the Motion to Sever and DENIED IN PART a s to the Motions to Dismiss and to Transfer. Accordingly, the Non-Norfolk Plaintiffs' claims are hereby SEVERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, and CONSOLIDATED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 294 Motion to Dis miss; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaints in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its responsive pleadings to Plaintiffs' amended complaints within thirty (30) days of the date that Plaintiffs file their complaints. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 6/22/2012. (bnew, )
February 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 297 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying as moot 269 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 272 Motion to Sever. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 2/6/12. (jcow, )
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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Gregory v. FedEx Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bradley D. Gregory
Represented By: Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr.
Represented By: SuAnne Hardee Bryant
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: FedEx Corporation
Represented By: Edward John Efkeman
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: FedEx Ground Package System Inc
Represented By: Kenneth Lee Blalack, II
Represented By: Stevan Eaton Bunnell
Represented By: Robert William McFarland
Represented By: Jeffrey Scott Nestler
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?