Equal Employment Opportunity Commision v. E & D Services, Inc.
Filing
65
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 43 Motion to Enforce Consent Decree and Order and Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (rg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
E & D SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
SA-8-CV-00714-ESC
ORDER
Before the Court in the above-styled cause of action is Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Opposed
Motion for Order Enforcing Consent Decree and Order and Final Judgment and to Show Cause
Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt [#43]. On this day, the Court held a hearing
by videoconference on the motion, at which counsel for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenors Robert Cardwell, Billy Strickland, Marcus Leavell, and
Sammy Barrow, and Defendant E&D Services, Inc. appeared through counsel. At the hearing,
the parties informed the Court that they have resolved their dispute regarding the outstanding
judgment balance in this case and established an agreed payment plan for Defendant to satisfy
the judgment. The Court will therefore dismiss the motion to enforce the consent decree and
final judgment. The dismissal will be without prejudice, however, in the event that Defendant
fails to fulfill its obligations. By separate order, the Court will set this case for a status
conference in March 2021 to address whether the parties’ agreement has been satisfied in full.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Opposed Motion for Order
Enforcing Consent Decree and Order and Final Judgment and to Show Cause Why Defendant
Should Not Be Held in Contempt [#43] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 1st day of July, 2020.
ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?