Driscoll et al v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
| Maurice B Driscoll, Marcloamp C Canate, Jr, Derrick Kibler, Charles E. King, Earl J Malvini and Yvonne E Sanchez |
| Lockheed Martin Corporation |
| 5:2009cv00439 |
| January 30, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Labor: Other Office |
| Santa Clara |
| Ronald M. Whyte |
| Howard R. Lloyd |
| Defendant |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal |
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
49
ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 8/16/2012. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2012)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 38 Motion for Settlement (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2010)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 27 Joint Motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. (rmwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2010)
|
|
Filing
23
STIPULATION AND ORDER 22 to Continue Deadline to Hear Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. Motion Hearing set for 4/16/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 2/2/10. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2010)
|
|
Filing
20
STIPULATION AND ORDER 19 to Continue Date of Service of Initial Disclosures. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 7/31/09. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009)
|
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.
