GRAY v. WELCH MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

Nos. 17-1009, 17-1227.

Dr. John Gray, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Welch Motor Company, Inc., doing business as Welch-Nissan Motors, Inc.; David Welch, Owner, Defendants-Appellees, Dr. John Gray, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Welch Motor Company, Inc., doing business as Welch-Nissan Motors, Inc.; David Welch, Owner, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Filed: August 10, 2017.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James D. Robertson , for Defendant-Appellee.

Risie Howard , for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.


UNPUBLISHED

PER CURIAM.

Welch Motor Company hired Dr. John Gray as a salesperson in July 2014. Less than one month later, Welch Motor's sales manager terminated Gray's employment in part because Gray would frequently leave work to attend to personal errands. Gray sued Welch Motor, raising claims under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1126(h), (i) and 1117), the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) (Ark. Code § 4-88-101 et seq.), and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (Ark. Code § 16-123-107), alleging various acts of race-based discrimination and unfair trade practices.

The district court1 denied various of Gray's discovery motions and requests, and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Welch Motor on all of Gray's claims. We have carefully reviewed all of Gray's appellate arguments, the pleadings, and record evidence in this matter. Cognizant of the standards of review and reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to Gray, giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, Edwards v. Hiland Roberts Dairy, Co., 860 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2017) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo); Hudson Enters, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Ins. Cos., 855 F.3d 874, 877 (8th Cir. 2017) ("We review a district court's `discovery rulings in a manner both narrow and deferential, and reversal is only warranted if an erroneous ruling amounted to a gross abuse of discretion.'" (quoting Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006))), we affirm the district court for the reasons stated in its analyses and orders. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FootNotes


1. The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases