Guido et al v. Mount Lemmon Fire District

Plaintiff: John Guido and Dennis Rankin
Defendant: Mount Lemmon Fire District
Case Number: 4:2013cv00216
Filed: April 1, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Cindy K Jorgenson
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Jury Demanded By: Both

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Guido et al v. Mount Lemmon Fire District
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Guido
Represented By: Shannon Lori Giles(Designation Retained)
Represented By: Donald T Awerkamp(Designation Retained)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dennis Rankin
Represented By: Shannon Lori Giles(Designation Retained)
Represented By: Donald T Awerkamp(Designation Retained)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mount Lemmon Fire District
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.