Doug Martin v. Arrow Electronics Inc et al

Case Number: 8:2004cv01134
Filed: September 28, 2004
Court: California Central District Court
Referring Judge: Fernando M. Olguin
Presiding Judge: James V. Selna
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
May 25, 2010 266 Opinion or Order of the Court THIRD AMENDED JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff by Judge James V. Selna. (See Judgment for details) (db)
December 15, 2009 243 Opinion or Order of the Court SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna, in favor of Doug Martin against Arrow Electronics Inc. Interest from November 11 through December 14, 2009, at the rate of 5.04% per annum, for a total of $7,894.26, thereby elevating the tot al judgment to $1,740,376.66, effective through December 14, 2009. Judgment is hereby accordingly entered in favor of plaintiff Doug Martin against defendant Arrow Electronics, Inc. in the total sum of $1,740,376.66. The bonding surety, Fi rst Deposit & Fidelity Co. of Maryland, is obligated, jointly and severally with Arrow, to pay this judgment pursuant to Court Order dated November 10, 2009. This judgment shall continue to accrue interest pursuant to 28 USC Section 1961(a) at 5.04% per annum, in the sum of $239.22 per day, accruing from December 15, 2009, until paid in full. (rla)

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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Doug Martin v. Arrow Electronics Inc et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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?