Burnham v. ENCAP Technologies, LLC
| David S. Burnham |
| ENCAP Technologies, LLC |
| ENCAP Technologies, LLC |
| David S. Burnham |
| 3:2015cv00024 |
| January 23, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
33
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 24 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 27 . Burnham is ORDERED to submit a supplemental me morandum of no more than five pages on the issue of what portion of the $49,250 in unpaid compensation for the period from June 30, 2012 to February 1, 2013 is unpaid wages. Burnham's supplemental memorandum is due no later than 14 days fro m entry of this Order. ENCAP may file a response, also no more than five pages, no later than seven days after service of Burnham's memorandum. No reply memorandum will be permitted without leave of court. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 7-18-2016. (de)
|
|
Filing
9
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING BURNHAM'S MOTION TO REMAND (3:15-CV-024, Doc. 4 ); CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS. 3:14-CV-279, 3:15-CV-024 AND 3:15-CV-088; TERMINATING CASE NOS. 3:14-CV-279 AND 3:15-CV-088 AND ORDERING THE PARTIES TO FILEANY SUBSEQUENT PLEADINGS IN CASE NO. 3:15-CV-024. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 3/25/15. (ep)
|
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 Ohio Southern 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.
