Atencio v. Dillon Companies, Inc. et al
| Marsha Atencio |
| Dillon Companies, Inc., Ann Pierce, Scott Brinson, Nash Foraci and Charles Biglen |
| 1:2011cv02195 |
| August 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Arapahoe |
| Philip A. Brimmer |
| Michael E. Hegarty |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 185 |
| 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
34
FINAL JUDGMENT by Clerk re: 33 Order. By Clerk on 12/7/12. (mnfsl, )
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Brief. Plaintiff Marsha Atencio's first and fourth claims for relief against defendants are dismissed without prejudice as preempted by § 301 o f the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq. This case is remanded to the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, where it was originally filed as Civil Action No. 2011 CV 4619. The Trial Preparation Conference scheduled for 12/7/2012 and the trial set for 12/17/2012 are vacated. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/5/12.(mnfsl, )
|
|
Filing
16
MINUTE ORDER granting 14 Motion to Amend the Case Caption. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the case caption by replacing Defendant Dillon Companies, Inc. with King Soopers. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 2/17/12.(mnfsl, )
|
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 Colorado 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.
