Rahman v. American Tire Distributor Inc et al
Shaw Rahman |
Anjani Gali, American Tire Distributor Inc and Mastech Inc |
2:2013cv00410 |
March 8, 2013 |
US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
Seattle Office |
King |
Robert S. Lasnik |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 176 ORDER granting Defendants' 132 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendants' 160 Motion to Strike; Plaintiff's 165 motion for leave to file an overlength response is GRANTED in part as to the documents that were timely filed on September 22, 2014. It is denied as to Dkt. # 159 and # 162 , however: those documents were untimely filed and have not been considered, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(TM) |
Filing 172 ORDER Granting Defendant Mastech's 128 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. All claims against defendant Mastech are DISMISSED. (LMK) |
Filing 115 ORDER Denying Plantiff's 91 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. The Praecipe submitted on July 26, 2014, will not be considered by the Court.(LMK) |
Filing 74 ORDER granting dfts' 66 Motion for Protective Order by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS) |
Filing 9 ORDER denying pltf's IFP application as moot and directing clerk to remove 3 Report and Recommendation by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)cc Rahman |
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 Washington Western 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.