Barnett v. Holcim
Plaintiff: Lee Barnett
Defendant: Holcim
Case Number: 2:2014cv00009
Filed: February 14, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Montana
Office: Butte Office
County: GALLATIN
Presiding Judge: Jeremiah C. Lynch
Presiding Judge: Donald W. Molloy
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 4, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Findings and Recommendations re 49 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 9/4/2015. (dle)
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 Montana District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Barnett v. Holcim
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lee Barnett
Represented By: Nathan S. McConnell
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Holcim
Represented By: Teri A. Walter
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?