BANGALU v. PROSPECT PARK HEALTH & REHABILITATION RESIDENCE et al

Defendant: JOHN DOES 1-10 and PROSPECT PARK HEALTH & REHABILITATION RESIDENCE
Plaintiff: SEANEH BANGALU
Case Number: 2:2013cv04076
Filed: July 12, 2013
Court: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Office: Philadelphia Office
County: Delaware
Presiding Judge: MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29:203 Equal Pay Act
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BANGALU v. PROSPECT PARK HEALTH & REHABILITATION RESIDENCE et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JOHN DOES 1-10
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: PROSPECT PARK HEALTH & REHABILITATION RESIDENCE
Represented By: STEVEN R. DICKINSON
Represented By: DANIEL J. SOBOL
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: SEANEH BANGALU
Represented By: RICHARD S. SWARTZ
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.