KRAFFT v. SHENANGO INCORPORATED

Plaintiff: EDWARD KRAFFT
Defendant: SHENANGO INCORPORATED
Case Number: 2:2013cv00320
Filed: March 4, 2013
Court: Pennsylvania Western District Court
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Allegheny
Presiding Judge: Terrence F. McVerry
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: Notice of Removal - ERISA
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
March 10, 2014 32 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment, as explained therein. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 3/10/14. (mh, )

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

Search for this case: KRAFFT v. SHENANGO INCORPORATED
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: EDWARD KRAFFT
Represented By: Deborah R. Erbstein
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: SHENANGO INCORPORATED
Represented By: Janet M. Serafin
Represented By: Thomas E. Birsic
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.