Barfoot v. Shinseki

Plaintiff: Susan Barfoot
Defendant: Eric Shinseki
Case Number: 2:2010cv01099
Filed: December 28, 2010
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Montgomery
Referring Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: Myron H. Thompson
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
April 8, 2011 14 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT dismissing this cause in its entirety with prejudice, with the parties to bear their own costs; denying as moot all outstanding motions; directing the Clerk to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; closing the case. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 4/8/2011. (br, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Barfoot v. Shinseki
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Susan Barfoot
Represented By: Michael David Boyle
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: James Joseph DuBois
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.


Why Is My Information Online?