Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holton v. Bama Lanes Prattville, LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

March 7, 2019

AMANDA HOLTON, Plaintiff,
v.
BAMA LANES PRATTVILLE, LLC; CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS; and SHELLY WAINWRIGHT, Defendants.

          ORDER ON PRETRIAL HEARING

          MYRON H. THOMPSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         A pretrial hearing was held in this case on March 7, 2019, wherein the following proceedings were held and actions taken:

         1. PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL:

         Plaintiff Amanda Holton will be represented at trial by attorney Alicia K. Haynes and Kenneth D. Haynes of Haynes & Haynes, P.C.

         Defendant Bama Lanes Prattville, LLC will be represented at trial by Kent Garrett of Kent Garrett Attorney at Law.

         Defendant Christopher Williams will be represented by Tamika R. Miller of Miller Smith, LLC.

         Defendant Shelly Wainwright will be represented pro se.

         COUNSEL APPEARING AT PRETRIAL HEARING:

         Same as trial counsel

         2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

         The parties agree that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives the district court original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4), which gives the district court original jurisdiction over causes of action arising out of civil rights violations; and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), which gives the district court jurisdiction over actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

         The parties agree that venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims asserted in this action occurred within this judicial district. The parties also agree that venue is proper in this judicial district under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) in that plaintiff would have worked in this judicial district but for the alleged unlawful employment practices.

         3. PLEADINGS: The following pleadings and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.