Sotil v. Drake Cement LLC

Plaintiff: Andres Sotil
Defendant: Drake Cement LLC
Case Number: 2:2010cv02034
Filed: September 22, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: G Murray Snow
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
February 21, 2012 69 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 51 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 64 Motion for Summary Disposition; denying as moot 66 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 2/21/12.(DMT)

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

Search for this case: Sotil v. Drake Cement LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Drake Cement LLC
Represented By: Ronald J Stolkin
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 ]
Plaintiff: Andres Sotil
Represented By: Cameron Matthew Hall
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?