Alexander v. Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. et al, No. 2:2009cv04614 - Document 111 (E.D. La. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - Regarding certain pending motions, the Court rules as follows: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to withdraw 108 his motion to consolidate 58 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on the showing made, Defendant 9;s motion to strike 76 certain memoranda filed by Plaintiff is DENIED. Additionally, Defendant's request for expedited consideration 75 of the motion to strike is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion for review 78 is DENIED as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 9/30/2011. (cab)

Download PDF
Alexander v. Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. et al Doc. 111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DWAYNE ALEXANDER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 09-4614 CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., D/B/A CCMSI, ET AL. SECTION “N” (1) ORDER AND REASONS Regarding certain pending motions, the Court rules as follows: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw (Rec. Doc. 108) his motion to consolidate (Rec Doc. 58) is GRANTED. Additionally, on the showing made, Defendant’s request that this order be conditioned upon Plaintiff’s payment of the fees and costs incurred by it in opposing the motion to consolidate (Rec. Doc. 109) is denied. Although the merit and significance of the motion to consolidate may have been reasonably debated, the Court, on the showing made, does not find it to have been frivolous. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on the showing made, Defendant’s motion to strike (Rec. Doc. 76) certain memoranda filed by Plaintiff is DENIED. Additionally, Defendant’s request for expedited consideration (Rec. Doc. 75) of the motion to strike is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for review (Rec. Doc. 78) is DENIED to the extent that is asks the Court to set aside certain rulings made by Magistrate Judge Shushan (Rec. Doc. 77). Defendant's request regarding the production of credit card and cell phone Dockets.Justia.com records by individuals Jerry Armatis and Carl Ayestas is now moot by virtue of the Magistrate Judge's subsequent ruling (Rec. Doc. 92) vacating that portion of the earlier ruling. With respect to the second matter appealed by Defendant, the denial of its motion to strike a reply brief filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's ruling to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of September 2011. ___________________________________ Kurt D. Engelhardt United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.