Orlando Luis Garcia

“For the reasons stated in the recommendation, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (docket no. 49) is DENIED and Defendant's motion for summary judgment (docket no. 51) is GRANTED.”

“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (docket no. 49) is DENIED and Defendant's motion for summary judgment (docket no. 51) is GRANTED.”

“Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case is CLOSED.”

“Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Dkt. No. 9) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

“Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Dkt. No. 76) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant the City of San Antonio's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 42) is GRANTED”

“Defendants Devin Day and Richard Serna's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 62) is GRANTED”

“Plaintiff Mathias Ometu's Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. Nos. 47, 48, 49) are DENIED”

“Defendants Devin Day and Richard Serna's Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 62) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 18) and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 21) are DENIED.”

“Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Bemporad's R&R and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Strike Removal and Recognize Continued State Court Jurisdiction Due to Fraud (Dkt. No. 17) and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 20) are DENIED.”

“For the reasons stated in the recommendation, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED as to Smith's claims against Guadalupe County; GRANTED as to Smith's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Locker; and otherwise DENIED.”

“The Court has reviewed the recommendation de novo and finds that the R&R is in all things correct and should be accepted. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Dkt. No. 25) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims in the Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED.”

“In all other respects, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation (Dkt. No. 33). For the reasons stated in the recommendation, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' Extra-Contractual Claims (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiffs' promptness-based claims under Texas Insurance Code §§ 542.003(b)(2)-(3), 542.055-.056, 542.058(a), and 542.060(a)(3), but GRANTED as to all other claims.”

“ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 25 Report and Recommendations, Status Report Order, GRANTING IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Sienna Marketing & Consulting Inc.,. Signed by Judge Orlando L. Garcia.”

“It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation (docket no. 24) is ACCEPTED and Defendant's motion to dismiss (docket no. 20) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. For the reasons stated in the recommendation, Plaintiff's state law claims, her claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and her claims of hostile work environment and race discrimination under Title VII are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims of national origin and sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII shall remain pending.”

“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Wal-Mart, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 22) is GRANTED”

“and Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (docket no. 23) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC's motion is granted as to Plaintiff's ‘general negligence’ and ‘negligent undertaking’ claims and denied only to the extent that Defendant also requested ‘summary judgment’ as to a sub-issue regarding Plaintiff's remaining premises liability claim. Only Plaintiff's premises liability claim against Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC shall proceed to trial in this case.”