Anderson v. Carefree of Colorado
Plaintiff: Randall Anderson
Defendant: Carefree of Colorado
Case Number: 3:2012cv00812
Filed: December 11, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Office: South Bend Office
County: Elkhart
Presiding Judge: Rudy Lozano
Presiding Judge: Christopher A Nuechterlein
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 2, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 30 OPINION AND ORDER: DENYING AS MOOT 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTING Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 6/2/14. (jld)
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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Anderson v. Carefree of Colorado
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carefree of Colorado
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Randall Anderson
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?