JOHNSON V. RETIREMENT PLAN OF GENERAL MILLS, INC. AND THE BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO AND GRAIN MILLERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (BCTGM)
| DEBORAH J. JOHNSON |
| RETIREMENT PLAN OF GENERAL MILLS, INC. AND THE BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO AND GRAIN MILERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (BCTGM) |
| 4:2016cv00151 |
| August 19, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| New Albany Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement |
| 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
45
ENTRY GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY - For the foregoing reasons, Johnson has demonstrated good cause to lift the stay and allow her ERISA pension and related claims to proceed against Defendant Retirement Plan of General Mills Inc . and the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM). Johnson's Motion to Lift Stay and Allow Her Vested ERISA Pension Claims to Proceed (Filing No. 41 ) is GRANTED. The STAY IS LIFTED and the parties are ORDERED to contact the Magistrate Judge within seven (7) days of the date of this Entry to schedule a conference in order to amend the Case Management deadlines. See Entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/31/2018. (MAT)
|
|
Filing
40
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION AND COMPEL ARBITRATION - The Court OVERRULES Johnson's Objections 37 and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Baker's Order 36 , and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Stay Litigation and Compel Arbitration 27 . SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/25/2017. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER ON 27 MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION and COMPEL ARBITRATION - The Court finds that the agreement at issue is enforceable and requires Plaintiff to arbitrate questions about the Plant's right to enforce it and whether it governs her substantive claims. Therefore, the Court stays this action, compels arbitration, and denies Plaintiff's request for fees. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 3/29/2017. (LBT)
|
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 Southern 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
| Search for this case: JOHNSON V. RETIREMENT PLAN OF GENERAL MILLS, INC. AND THE BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO AND GRAIN MILLERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (BCTGM) | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: DEBORAH J. JOHNSON | |
| Represented By: | Andrew M. Grabhorn |
| Represented By: | Michael D. Grabhorn |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: RETIREMENT PLAN OF GENERAL MILLS, INC. AND THE BAKERY, CONFECTIONARY, TOBACCO AND GRAIN MILERS INTERNATIONAL UNION (BCTGM) | |
| Represented By: | FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP (Indianapolis) |
| Represented By: | FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP (Indianapolis) |
| 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.
