Chamat v. Paulson

Plaintiff: Mauricio Chamat
Defendant: Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Case Number: 3:2007cv01010
Filed: June 4, 2007
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: San Diego
Referring Judge: Jan M. Adler
Presiding Judge: Thomas J. Whelan
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
March 23, 2009 64 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 54 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims With Prejudice; Denying as Moot 54 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 3/23/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(cap) (kaj).

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

Search for this case: Chamat v. Paulson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mauricio Chamat
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 ]
Defendant: Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Represented By: U S Attorney CV
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?