Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. et al v. Supervalu, Inc.
0:2005cv02809 |
December 6, 2005 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
Jeanne J. Graham |
John R. Tunheim |
Labor: Other |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 265 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part defendant's 230 Motion to Exclude Reports and Testimony of Experts Sedo, Pakter, and Swan. The motion is granted as to the Sedo Report; the motion is denied without prejudice in all other respects. (2) granting in part and denying in part defendant's 238 Motion for Summary Judgment for Class Decertification. Motion is granted as to Count I of the Amended Complaint regarding declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for violations of 49 USC 14103(a); and regarding declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for violations of 49 USC 14103(b) to the extent that those claims relate to failure to provide adequate equipment for unloading palletized freight; the motion is denied in all other respects.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 24, 2009. (dml) |
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 Minnesota 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: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. et al v. Supervalu, Inc. | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.