Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Patricia Trombley v. Sciolex Corporation

Date: 09-16-2021

Case Number: 2:21-cv-00022-wks

Judge: William K. Sessions III

Court: United States District Court for the District of Vermonth (Chittenden County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:



Best Burlington Civil Rights Lawyer Directory



Defendant's Attorney: Amy E. Smith, Kendall A. Hoechst and Steve W. Ray

Description:
Burlington, VT: Civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on job discrimination (sex) theory.
Outcome:
09/16/2021 20 REPORT of Early Neutral Evaluator. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Marks, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

09/16/2021 21 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: without costs, with the right to petition, upon good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 9/16/2021. (law) (Entered: 09/16/2021)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Patricia Trombley v. Sciolex Corporation?

The outcome was: 09/16/2021 20 REPORT of Early Neutral Evaluator. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Marks, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2021) 09/16/2021 21 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: without costs, with the right to petition, upon good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 9/16/2021. (law) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

Which court heard Patricia Trombley v. Sciolex Corporation?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Vermonth (Chittenden County), VT. The presiding judge was William K. Sessions III.

Who were the attorneys in Patricia Trombley v. Sciolex Corporation?

Plaintiff's attorney: Best Burlington Civil Rights Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Amy E. Smith, Kendall A. Hoechst and Steve W. Ray.

When was Patricia Trombley v. Sciolex Corporation decided?

This case was decided on September 16, 2021.