Eighth District Electrical Pension Fund et al v. Standard Electric Company et al
| Eighth District Electrical Pension Fund and Trustees of Eighth District Electrical Pension Fund |
| Standard Electric Company and Windy Point Electric Company |
| 1:2012cv00462 |
| February 22, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Arapahoe |
| R. Brooke Jackson |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
| None |
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
80
ORDER granting 77 Motion for Judgment Debtor Exam by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 12/3/15.(cbssec)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER denying 47 Motion to Vacate Judgment. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 1/12/15.(jdyne, )
|
|
Filing
43
FINAL JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of Eighth District Electrical Pension Fund, Trustees of Eighth District Electrical Pension Fund against Windy Point Electric Company, Mark Kulow. by Clerk on 10/9/2013. (trlee, )
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 21 Motion to Dismiss Party ; granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 26 Motion for Leave. The Court has previously entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant Standard Electric Company in the amount of $207,436.23 plus reasonable attorneys fees (now determined to be $1,485) and costs (taxed in the amount of $290 per docket# 36 plus post-judgme nt interest at the legal rate. 32 . The Court now directs that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants Windy Point Electric and Mark Kulow. The parties shall attempt to agree on the amount of the judgment to be entered, including reasonable attorneys fees, costs and interest. Any stipulation shall be filed no later than August 30, 2013. If the parties cannot agree, then please set a hearing, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 8/1/2013.(ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER granting 28 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment Against Standard Electric Company. Based on the findings above, the Court hereby enters default judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) against Defendant, Standard Electric Company, and enters an order providing for the following relief: A. A total judgment of $207,436.23 in favor of Plaintiffs and against Standard, consisting of the following components: (1) The amount of the judgment, attorney fees, and costs in th e Littleton Electric case less payments made to date, a total of $180,227.48; and (2) In accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C), an additional amount of $27,208.75, which constitutes the greater of interest or liquidated damages on the unpaid contributions. B. Reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the portion of this action litigated against Standard, as provided in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D), and post-judgment interest at the rate provided by law, to be proven in a Bill of Costs and Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs to be filed by the Plaintiffs within 15 days from the date hereof. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 04/08/13. (alvsl)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER TO SET SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: The parties are ordered to set an initial scheduling conference in this Court (with Judge Jackson) no later than 45 days after the answer, motion to dismiss or other response to the complaint is filed, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 02/23/2012. (rbjsec. )
|
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.
