MEMORANDUM OPINION SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. Defendant AT & T Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that this Court lacks jurisdiction over AT & T Inc. under Rule 12(b)(2). On August 31, 2012, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against all Defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), with the exception of AT & T Inc. due to the outstanding personal jurisdiction motion. Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over AT & T Inc., that entity is hereby dismissed. However, even if...
FINAL JUDGMENT SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. A bench trial of this matter commenced February 21, 2012. After fourteen days of trial, twenty-four witnesses, hundreds of exhibits, and post-trial briefing, the Court is ready to finally adjudicate this case. Because the Government has failed to carry its burden of proof that Defendants violated the Anti-Kickback Statute or False Claims Act, judgment is entered in favor of Defendants. Procedural History In December 2004, Thomas Jamison filed...
MEMORANDUM OPINION GLEN H. DAVIDSON, Senior District Judge. Presently before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss [44] all claims except the Title VII claim, and Plaintiff's motion to compel immunity-related discovery [58]. Upon due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss [44] should be granted and the motion to compel [58] should be denied as moot. A. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff Dr. Yul Chu ("Plaintiff") was a non-tenured professor at...
MEMORANDUM OPINION MICHAEL P. MILLS, Chief Judge. Plaintiff Tabbie Hazzard filed suit against Express Services, Inc., and Navistar Defense, LLC, claiming she was terminated on the basis of her gender in violation of Title VII. Express and Navistar filed motions for summary judgment [65, 63]. Plaintiff thereafter amended her complaint adding Griffin West Point, LLC, as a defendant. Griffin filed a Motion to Dismiss [84]. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies timely,...
MEMORANDUM OPINION MICHAEL P. MILLS, Chief Judge. This cause comes before the court on the parties' motions for summary judgment. Spectrum Bags, Inc. ("Spectrum") moves for summary judgment [104] on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("The Commission") Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation claims. The Commission moves for partial summary judgment [106] on various affirmative defenses advanced by Spectrum. Having considered the parties' submissions in this matter, the court...
MEMORANDUM OPINION SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. Before the Court are numerous motions filed by the party Defendants to the lawsuit, AT & T, Inc., AT & T Mobility, LLC, Motorola Solutions, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., and Qualcomm Incorporated, brought by Plaintiffs, Corr Wireless Communications, LLC, Cellular South, Inc., and Cellular South Licenses, LLC, for violations of federal antitrust laws. 1 Plaintiffs' 146-page complaint revolves around the development of standards governing...
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the pro se petition of Marcus Morris, Mississippi prisoner # 101942, for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Respondents have moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred pursuant to 2244, and Petitioner has responded. The matter is now ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, Respondents' motion is granted, and the instant petition will be dismissed with prejudice....
Order Extending Deadline for Plaintiff to Respond to the Defendants' Motion JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [39]. Because the defendants have submitted matters outside the pleadings for the court's consideration, the court will treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and allow Plaintiff an additional fourteen day period to file a response....
ORDER DAVID A. SANDERS, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on motion of the defendant to deem its requests for admissions granted (# 36). Also before the court is the plaintiff's motion to withdraw her admissions (# 38). The court has also considered the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's Notice and corresponding response to the requests for admissions (# 41) and the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's untimely response to the defendant's motion to have the...
MEMORANDUM OPINION MICHAEL P. MILLS, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. (Doc. entry no. 42). The Government has filed a response, to which Petitioner has not replied. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that the motion should be denied. Facts and Procedural History On March 17, 2010, Petitioner pleaded guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. 841. In his plea...
MEMORANDUM OPINION MICHAEL P. MILLS, Chief Judge. This cause comes before the court on motion of defendant Vanguard of Ripley, LLC, doing business as Rest Haven Health and Rehabilitation ("Rest Haven") for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff Berthetta Hatch opposes summary judgment. The court, having considered the submissions of the parties, concludes that the motion is denied with regard to plaintiff's Title VII claim and granted with regard to plaintiff's Fair Labor...
MEMORANDUM OPINION GLEN H. DAVIDSON, Senior Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentences imposed on him by the Court's March 30, 2001 judgment, as later modified by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. ( See doc. entry no. 183). The Government has filed a response to the motion, and Petitioner has filed a reply thereto. This matter is now ripe for the Court's consideration. Petitioner was tried and convicted...
MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL GLEN H. DAVIDSON, Senior Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant Ann Jefferson's motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [59]. The Government has responded, and this matter is now ripe for review. A. Factual and Procedural...
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. Presently before the Court is the pro se petition filed by Stanley Montgomery, Mississippi prisoner #63096, seeking federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, and Respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. entry no. 6). Upon due consideration, the Court finds the motion should be granted and the petition dismissed, for the reasons that follow. Facts and...
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. Before the Court are the pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on or about December 13, 2011, by Petitioner, and Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 Upon due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the motion be granted and the petition dismissed, for the reasons that follow. Facts and Procedural History On May 11, 2007, Petitioner was...
MEMORANDUM OPINION DAVID A. SANDERS, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant True Temper Sports, Inc. After reviewing the motion, response, and authorities, the court finds as follows: FACTUAL BACKGROUND Because a major customer was considering moving its business to another vendor, True Temper planned a series of site visits with this customer at its manufacturing facility. One part of its effort to make a good impression on...
ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court sua sponte following a motion to remand filed by the plaintiffs. Rule 16(b)(1)(B) of the Uniform Local Rules provides: A motion to remand or a motion to refer an action to the bankruptcy court will stay the attorney conference and disclosure requirements and all discovery not relevant to the remand or referral issue and will stay the parties' obligation to make disclosures pending the court's ruling on the motions. At...
ORDER DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge. This cause is before the Court sua sponte to address the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The issue was raised by the defendants in their motion for summary judgment, but not addressed in this Court's Memorandum Opinion of July 12, 2012. It is wellsettled that Eleventh Amendment immunity bars damages claims against state officials in their official capacities. Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 , 67, 71 (1989). The plaintiff...
ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge. This cause came before this Court on the joint motion of the defendants to stay case management order deadlines pending resolution of dispositive motions before the court, or in the alternative for an 180 day extension of those deadlines (#124). Trial in this case is set for June 17, 2013, and the possibility of a continuance is highly unlikely, as this case at the current trial date will have been pending almost 3 years. Additionally, the court must...
ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge. This cause is before the court on the defendant's motions for leave to file amended answer (#65), for an extension of certain of the current case management order deadlines (#67), and to compel discovery responses (#69). The court, having reviewed the record, the motion, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, and having heard oral argument, finds for the reasons announced in detail by the court on the record at the conclusion of the motion...
