Newsom v. Detroit Area Agency on Aging
Plaintiff: Rochelle Newsom
Defendant: Detroit Area Agency on Aging
Case Number: 2:2017cv12991
Filed: September 12, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Wayne
Presiding Judge: Gershwin A. Drain
Presiding Judge: R. Steven Whalen
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 201
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 24, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 15 OPINION and ORDER Denying Defendant's 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)
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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Newsom v. Detroit Area Agency on Aging
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rochelle Newsom
Represented By: Caitlin E. Malhiot
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: Detroit Area Agency on Aging
Represented By: Kenneth M. Gonko
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?