Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc v. Argyle

Defendant: Robert S. Argyle
Plaintiff: Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc
Case Number: 3:2013cv00416
Filed: March 11, 2013
Court: Oregon District Court
Office: Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge: Garr M. King
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 29:2601 Family & Medical Leave Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
May 17, 2013 15 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS: Argyle's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 7 is denied. Signed on 5/17/2013 by Judge Garr M. King. (pc)

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

Search for this case: Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc v. Argyle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Robert S. Argyle
Represented By: Joseph James Haddad
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: Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc
Represented By: Edwin A. Harnden
Represented By: Paula A. Barran
Represented By: Richard C. Hunt
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.