Shen v. SHINSEKI

Plaintiff: Ning Shen
Defendant: ERIC SHINSEKI
Case Number: 3:2011cv00016
Filed: February 24, 2011
Court: West Virginia Northern District Court
Office: Martinsburg Office
County: Berkeley
Presiding Judge: John Preston Bailey
Referring Judge: David J. Joel
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 29:791
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 29, 2011 16 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER OF HEARING GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: granting 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 11 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 3/29/11. (njz)

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 West Virginia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Shen v. SHINSEKI
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ning Shen
Represented By: R. Scott Oswald
Represented By: Garry G. Geffert
Represented By: David L. Scher
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: ERIC SHINSEKI
Represented By: Helen Campbell Altmeyer
Represented By: William J. Ihlenfeld, II
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.