Michael Neely v. The Boeing Company Inc
Plaintiff: Michael Neely
Defendant: The Boeing Company
Case Number: 2:2016cv01791
Filed: November 14, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: XX US, Outside District
Presiding Judge: Richard A Jones
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
May 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 160 ORDER granting Defendant's 112 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA (Count 4), retaliation in violation of the ADEA (Count 5), wrongful discharge in violation of public policy premised on the WLAD (Count 7), age discrimination in violation of the WLAD (Count 8), and retaliation in violation of the WLAD (Count 9) are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)
May 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 158 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 106 Motion for Reconsideration signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)
April 23, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 156 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 111 Motion for Sanctions signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)
April 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 155 MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 138 Motion to STRIKE Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Defendant's Praecipe Summary Judgement. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)
April 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 154 MINUTE ORDER re Plaintiff's 106 MOTION for Reconsideration re 83 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 61 Motion to Dismiss. The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration no later than 4/26/2019. The Clerk is DIRECTED to RENOTE Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 106 ) to 4/26/2019. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)
May 15, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 83 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 61 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)
March 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 71 Motion to Compel without prejudice with leave to refile. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH)
September 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 45 Motion for Leave to File to file Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file his proposed amended complaint, filed as Docket No. 49 , within twenty days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Michael Neely v. The Boeing Company Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Neely
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: The Boeing Company
Represented By: Lincoln O Bisbee(Designation Admission Pro Hac Vice)
Represented By: Alana F. Genderson
Represented By: Laurence A Shapero
Represented By: Jonathan L. Snare(Designation Admission Pro Hac Vice)
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?