AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

HENRY H. SHAVITZ, for himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, a municipal corporation, ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Corporation doing business in North Carolina, ALLEN L. PEARSON, II, PEEK TRAFFIC, INC., a Corporation doing business in North Carolina, PHIL WYLIE, SREEKANTH NANDAGIRI, ARNOLD KOONCE, Mayor of the City of High Point, ALBERT A. CAMPBELL, M. CHRISTOPHER WHITLEY, AARON LIGHTNER, RONALD B. WILKINS, M.C. ROWE, WILLIAM S. BENCINI, JR., DAVID B. WALL, each members of the High Point City Council, STRIB BOYNTON, City Manager of the City of High Point, and THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

JAMES BEATY, District Judge

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously herewith, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the City Defendants and Peek [Document #23] is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that all claims against these Defendants are dismissed, with the exception of Claims Three, Five, and Six which will be remanded to the state court for determination. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants EDS and Pearson [Document #27] is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that all claims against these Defendants are dismissed, with the exception of Claims Three, Five, and Six which will be remanded to the state court for determination. The Motion to Dismiss And/Or for Summary Judgment and Remand filed by the State of North Carolina [Document #31] is GRANTED as follows: the portion of the State's Motion requesting summary judgment against Claims One and Two is GRANTED; the portion of the State's Motion requesting a remand of Claims Three, Five, and Six is GRANTED; the portion of the State's Motion requesting dismissal for failure to state a ground on which the statute may be invalid is DENIED as moot, in light of the grant of the Motion's request for summary judgment. For all the same reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Document #34] is DENIED in full. Finally, Defendant Guilford County Board of Education's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Document #21] and their specific Request for Declaratory Judgment [Document #13] are both DENIED.

Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Claims three, five, and six, as set forth in the Complaint in this action, are REMANDED to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Guilford County, North Carolina.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SHAVITZ v. CITY OF HIGH POINT
(Jul 9, 2003)