Khan v. Walgreens Co.
Plaintiff: Mohammed Khan
Defendant: Walgreens Co.
Case Number: 4:2011cv02956
Filed: June 15, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Phyllis J. Hamilton
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
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
January 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 18 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/23/12. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2012)
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Khan v. Walgreens Co.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Walgreens Co.
Represented By: Brian Samuel Crone
Represented By: Erick Corporon Turner
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mohammed Khan
Represented By: Nicholas Scardigli
Represented By: Peter Aaron Devencenzi
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?