Arredondo v. General Motor Corporation

Plaintiff: Ricardo Arredondo
Defendant: General Motor Corporation
Case Number: 2:2013cv11433
Filed: March 29, 2013
Court: Michigan Eastern District Court
County: Wayne
Presiding Judge: Avern Cohn
Referring Judge: David R. Grand
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 21, 2013 13 Opinion or Order of the Court Memorandum and Order Denying Defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)
January 20, 2015 40 Opinion or Order of the Court Order Granting Defendant's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Complete Personnel File and Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Arredondo v. General Motor Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ricardo Arredondo
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: General Motor Corporation
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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.