National Ass. of Government Employees, Inc. v. National Emergency Medical Services Ass., et al
| National Association of Government Employees, Inc. |
| National Emergency Medical Services Association and Torren Colcord |
| American Medical Response |
| 1:2013cv10854 |
| April 11, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Norfolk |
| Judith G. Dein |
| Joseph L. Tauro |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| 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
116
Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. NAGE has met its burden to certify a good-faith attempt toconfer with the party failing to produce discovery. Therefore,and given that Colcord filed no opposition, I ALLOW NAGE's motion to compel Docket No. 114 and order Colcord to respond to all pending discovery requests within thirty days of this orders issuance. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
|
Filing
106
Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. The plaintiff's motion to confirm the arbitration award 91 is ALLOWED. The defendant's motion to vacate 97 and the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees 100 are DENIED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
|
Filing
68
Judge Joseph L. Tauro: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS entered. This court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the July 16, 2013, Report and Recommendation 47 of Magistrate Judge Dien. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, this court here by orders that: Plaintiff National Association of Government Employees, Inc.s (NAGE) Motion to Strike Counterclaims 40 is ALLOWED. The court treats the verified counterclaim as an affidavit in support of Defendant's request for a preliminary injunction. Defendant Colcord's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 27 is DENIED. Defendant National Emergency Medical Services Association, Inc.s (NEMSA) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 27 is ALLOWED. Pending the outcome of any reques ts for preliminary relief submitted in arbitration proceedings betweenNAGE and NEMSA, it is hereby ordered that (1) NAGE shall be restrained andenjoined from participating in any election(s) in which it would be seeking toreplace NEMSA or otherwise c hallenge NEMSAs status as the representative forany existing employees or bargaining units; (2) NAGE shall withdraw all pendingpetitions to decertify NEMSA as the representative of any existing bargainingunits; and (3) NAGE shall be restrained and en joined from pursuing further efforts to decertify NEMSA as the representative of any existing bargaining units. The court clarifies that the facts that form the basis of the preliminary injunction are not in dispute. Accordingly, an evidentiary hear ing is not necessary. In pages nineteen through twenty of its objections, NAGE claims that four facts are in dispute. None of the facts described in these two pages forms the basis of this courts order. Even if this court were to accept NAGEs version of these facts as true, an injunction would still be appropriate in this case.1 NEMSA must now post a bond pursuant to § 107 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 28U.S.C. §§ 101-115. This court refers the determination of the proper bond to Magistrate Judge Dein. IT IS SO ORDERED.(Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
|
|
Filing
44
Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Trustee Process Attachment. (Dambrosio, Jolyne)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
