v. Mohammed et al

v. Mohammed et al

Plaintiff:	Sean Mohammed
Defendant:	Central Drive Mini Storage, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2013cv00469
Filed:	August 21, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Norfolk Office
County:	Newport News City
Presiding Judge:	Tommy E. Miller
Presiding Judge:	Raymond A. Jackson
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 28, 2014	Filing 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered and filed 5/28/14 as to Plaintiff's 18 Motion to Amend Complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Defendant Mini Price Storage's ("Defendant" or "Mini P rice") 15 Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint. As outlined in this Order, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The Motion to Amend the religious accommodation and retaliation claims is GRANTED . The Motion to Amend the hostile work environment and failure to promote claims is DENIED and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.The Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the proposed First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18-1) as the operable complaint in this case. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is DENIED as moot. Defendant's request for costs associated with the Motion to Amend is DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this Order. (See Order for Specifics) (Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 5/28/14). Copies provided as directed on 5/29/14.(ecav)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 28, 2014

Filing 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered and filed 5/28/14 as to Plaintiff's 18 Motion to Amend Complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Defendant Mini Price Storage's ("Defendant" or "Mini P rice") 15 Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint. As outlined in this Order, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The Motion to Amend the religious accommodation and retaliation claims is GRANTED . The Motion to Amend the hostile work environment and failure to promote claims is DENIED and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.The Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the proposed First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18-1) as the operable complaint in this case. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is DENIED as moot. Defendant's request for costs associated with the Motion to Amend is DENIED. Defendant is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this Order. (See Order for Specifics) (Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 5/28/14). Copies provided as directed on 5/29/14.(ecav)

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: v. Mohammed et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Central Drive Mini Storage, 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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sean Mohammed
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?