R. Bryan Harwell

“it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's R & R is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, and the Court GRANTS in part, DENIES in part, the City's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket #26]. Specifically, the Court grants the City summary judgment as to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, but denies summary judgment as to the FMLA retaliation claim.”

“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motions to dismiss;”

“this Court ADOPTS in part and REJECTS in part the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation [ECF #61]. Defendant's motion for summary judgment [ECF #35] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support her failure to promote claim with respect to the February 2013 Florence, South Carolina position, and accordingly that claim survives summary judgment.”

“This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 64. The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for the reasons set forth below.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 16]. Plaintiff's only remaining claims are breach of contract and bad faith.”

“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 65. Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Relator's FEHBP claims, and DENIED as to Relator's remaining claims.”

“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6], granting it with respect to the state law claims but denying it with respect to the Title IX and gender discrimination claims.”

“for the reasons stated above, it is enough to withstand summary judgment, and this Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. [ECF # 72].”

“Defendant Wall Tec, LLC's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 64) is DENIED, Defendants Robert and Mary Chambers' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66) is DENIED”

“Defendants Robert and Mary Chambers' motion to exclude (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED”

“Monterey Bay Homes, LLC's motion to exclude (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

“the magistrate recommends that the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ... For the following reasons, this Court adopts the R & R.”

“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 31] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Specifically, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion as to Plaintiffs quid pro quo mixed motive claim and her hostile work environment claim and GRANTS Defendant's Motion as to all other causes of action.”

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, ACE INA is dismissed from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the remaining Defendants' request to dismiss this case on the ground of forum non conveniens is denied.”