Kelib v. AMPCO System Parking, Inc, et al

Defendant: AMPCO System Parking, Inc, and Teamsters Local 120
Plaintiff: Robel Kelib
Case Number: 0:2011cv01174
Filed: May 5, 2011
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Ramsey
Referring Judge: Jeanne J. Graham
Presiding Judge: John R. Tunheim
Nature of Suit: Labor/Management Relations
Cause of Action: 29:185
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Kelib v. AMPCO System Parking, Inc, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: AMPCO System Parking, Inc,
Represented By: Richard A Ross
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: Teamsters Local 120
Represented By: Martin J Costello
Represented By: Pamela Hodges Nissen
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: Robel Kelib
Represented By: Ferdinand F Peters
Represented By: Benjamin Loetscher
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.