Sullivan et al v. Monsanto Company et al
| 2:2006cv04437 |
| August 18, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Ivan L. R. Lemelle |
| Karen Wells Roby |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits |
| 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
173
ORDER granting 160 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 161 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (lag, )
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER re: plas' 133 Motion to Compel and Extend Deadline for Class Certification and Pfizer dfts' 131 Motion to Enforce Scheduling Order: IT IS ORDERED that plas' 133 Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth herein; FURTHER ORDERED that Pfizer dfts' 131 Motion to Enforce Scheduling Order is DENIED AS MOOT as set forth herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 11/20/09. (rll, )
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended, Restated and Supplemental Class Action Complaint. Signed by Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle on 1/6/09. (lag, )
|
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 Louisiana Eastern 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
| Search for this case: Sullivan et al v. Monsanto Company et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
