CHONG v. PARSIPPANY TROY-HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION et al

Plaintiff: CHI KEUNG CHONG
Defendant: PARSIPPANY TROY-HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION and VARIOUS JOHN DOES, JANE DOES AND XYZ COMPANIES
Case Number: 2:2013cv02031
Filed: April 1, 2013
Court: New Jersey District Court
Office: Newark Office
County: Morris
Presiding Judge: Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Referring Judge: Mark Falk
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Jury Demanded By: Both

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 New Jersey District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CHONG v. PARSIPPANY TROY-HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CHI KEUNG CHONG
Represented By: HENG WANG
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: PARSIPPANY TROY-HILLS BOARD OF EDUCATION
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: VARIOUS JOHN DOES, JANE DOES AND XYZ COMPANIES
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.