Vegas v. United Steelworkers et al
| Michael Vegas |
| Gaylan Z. Prescott, Leo W. Gerard, Hawaii Independent Energy, Par Petroleum Corporation, Tesoro Corporation, USW, AFL-CIO, United Steelworkers, Gregory J. Goff, Will Monteleone and Bill Haywood |
| 1:2013cv00641 |
| November 22, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY |
| RICHARD L. PUGLISI |
| Labor/Management Relations |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 185 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
101
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 62 , 64 , 67 , 69 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 12/18/2014. "The court grants the motions for summary judgment and the joinders therein filed by United Steel workers and Vegas's employer. Vegas fails to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the union breached its duty of fair representation or whether his employer terminated him for "just cause." The Clerk of Court is directed to en ter judgment for Defendants and to close this case." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
|
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 Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
