Sanchez et al v. Lasership, Inc.
| Manuel Milton Sanchez, Carmelo Medina and Gerard Edmond |
| Lasership, Inc. |
| 1:2012cv00246 |
| March 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Alexandria Office |
| Out of State |
| Gerald Bruce Lee |
| Thomas Rawles Jones |
| Other Labor Litigation |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
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
163
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER ON MOTIONS granting Deft Lasership's 114 Motion for Summary Judgment and entering JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant Lasership and against Plaintiffs on all counts; granting Defendant's 131 Motion to Strike Port ions of Plaintiffs' Evidence in Opposition to Summary Judgment; denying Deft's 138 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority; denying Pltff's 118 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting Deft's [1 57] Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and denying as moot Pltff's 79 Motion to Certify Class and Defendant's 106 Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Declarations Submitted in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 4/3/13. (tbul, )
|
|
Filing
74
MEMORANDUM OPINION re Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment etc.. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 8/27/12. (klau, )
|
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
