Flaum v. Gloucester Lanes, Inc. et al
| Kenneth R. Flaum |
| Gloucester Lanes, Inc., Mahmood Kalantar and Belinda Kalantarzadeh |
| 4:2013cv00131 |
| September 27, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Newport News Office |
| Gloucester |
| Lawrence R. Leonard |
| Henry C. Morgan |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
84
OPINION AND ORDER that the Court GRANTS the 82 Motion to Substitute; directing the Clerk to substitute The Estate of Kenneth R. Flaum as the plaintiff in this action, and to terminate Kenneth R. Flaum as a plaintiff in this action. Signed by District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr on 1/26/2015 and filed on 1/27/2015. (rsim, )
|
|
Filing
29
OPINION AND ORDER that the Court GRANTS the Motion as it relates to the forty-one Waffle House locations Flaum has not visited, but DENIES the Motion as it relates to the four locations he has visited. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff file a more def inite statement as explained in this Order. Such statement shall be filed by the close of business on 4/16/2014. All additional factual allegations must be based on the knowledge of the Plaintiff as it existed on the date of the hearing, April 2, 2014. Signed by District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr and filed on 4/3/2014. (rsim, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
