Todd v. Daewon America, Inc., No. 3:2011cv01077 - Document 118 (M.D. Ala. 2014)

Court Description: JUDGMENT: it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Dft Daewon America, Inc.'s 101 motion to dismiss is granted as to the following 14 opt-in plfs: Matthew Bolt, James Brooks, Willie Davis, Jeffery Heard, Charlie Herro n, Kathleen Hursh, Euseiok Jeong, Daniel Kim, Ji Kun Kim, Edwin Reece, David Sargent, Icjock Taylor, Barbara Wise, and James Yielding; (2) These 14 opt-in plfs are dismissed with prejudice and terminated from this litigation; (3) The motion is still pending as to other opt-in plfs; DIRECTING the clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 FRCP; This case is not closed. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/18/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

Download PDF
Todd v. Daewon America, Inc. Doc. 118 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION KELVIN TODD, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. DAEWON AMERICA, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11cv1077-MHT (WO) JUDGMENT In accordance with the opinion entered this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court as follows: (1) Defendant dismiss (doc. no. opt-in plaintiffs: Daewon America, Inc.’s motion to 101) is granted as to the following 14 Matthew Bolt, James Brooks, Willie Davis, Jeffery Heard, Charlie Herron, Kathleen Hursh, Euseiok Jeong, Daniel Kim, Ji Kun Kim, Edwin Reece, David Sargent, Icjock Taylor, Barbara Wise, and James Yielding. (2) These 14 opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice and terminated from this litigation. Dockets.Justia.com (3) The motion is still pending as to other opt-in plaintiffs. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case is not closed. DONE, this the 18th day of April, 2014. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.