Lovekamp et al v. Oak Street Mortgage, LLC
| Sean Lovekamp, Ronald Mulso, Daniel Pike, Michael Quinzio and Shane Jones |
| Oak Street Mortgage, LLC |
| 5:2007cv00206 |
| May 21, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Ocala Office |
| Marion |
| Wm Terrell Hodges |
| Gary R Jones |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2007. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Remark - Please refer to Case No. 5:04-cv-46-Oc-10GRJ, Court's Order Doc. No. 176 and Judgment Doc. No. 177, re: Parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement. (AIQ) |
| ALL FUTURE CASE PLEADINGS WILL BE FILED AND ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET FOR CASE #5:04-cv-46-Oc-10GRJ ONLY. (AIQ) |
| Cases associated: Create association to 5:04-cv-00046-WTH-GRJ. (AIQ) |
| Filing 3 ANSWER to complaint by Oak Street Mortgage, LLC. (Originally filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 10/25/06.) (AIQ) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Oak Street Mortgage, LLC; jury demand filed by all plaintiffs. (Originally filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 7/7/06.) (AIQ) |
| Filing 1 Case transferred in from Northern District of Illinois; Case Number 1:06-cv-3667. Original file with documents numbered 1-47, certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. (AIQ) |
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 Florida Middle 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.
