Huynh v. United States Postal Service et al
| Phu G. Huynh |
| United States Postal Service and Patrick R. Donahoe |
| 3:2011cv03195 |
| June 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Nathanael M. Cousins |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
94
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granting 76 Motion for Summary Judgment. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2013)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER re 86 Request filed by Phu G. Huynh. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 04/19/2013. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2013)
|
|
Filing
68
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER re 67 Clarification of Schedule filed by Patrick R. Donahoe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 03/08/2013. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2013)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER re 43 Request for Modified Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 11/4/11 (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2011)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER re Briefing Schedule 40 , 41 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on November 2, 2011. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2011)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER Setting Hearing and Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss 27 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 10/31/11. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)
|
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 Northern 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.
