Quasius v. Schwan Food Company, The et al
Plaintiff: Robert T Quasius
Defendant: Schwan's Global Supply Chain, Inc and Schwan Food Company, The
Case Number: 0:2008cv00575
Filed: February 28, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Ericksen
Presiding Judge: Graham
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
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
August 13, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER : IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Defendants Amended Motion for Attorney Fees [Docket No. 53] is DENIED. 2.Defendants Motion for Review of Costs Judgment [Docket No. 69] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.3.The Cost Judgment [Docket No. 68] is AMENDED to tax an additional $1,468.71 in transcript fees for Quasiuss deposition for a total of $1,902.76.4.The Clerk of Court is directed to enter an Amended Cost Judgment in accordance with this Order.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 13, 2010. (slf)
January 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER. Quasius's motion under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) is DENIED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on January 15, 2009. (slf)
December 23, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER re 28 Letter to District Judge filed by Schwan's Global Supply Chain, Inc, Schwan Food Company, The (Written Opinion). IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Defendants request for summary judgment dismissing Quasiuss ADA claims [Docket No. 28] is GRANTED.2.Quasiuss Complaint [Docket No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on December 23, 2008. (slf)
November 14, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Dismiss. IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Defendants motion for partial summary judgment and for sanctions [Docket No. 9] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.2.The deadline for Quasius to bring a motion to withdraw or amend his responses to Defendants requests for admissions is December 14, 2008. 3.Counts I-II of Quasiuss Complaint [Docket No. 1] are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent they are based on discrete acts occurring before September 17, 2005.4.Counts III-V of Quasiuss Complaint [Docket No. 1] are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on November 14, 2008. (slf)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Quasius v. Schwan Food Company, The et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert T Quasius
Represented By: Lawrence P Schaefer
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: Schwan's Global Supply Chain, Inc
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: Schwan Food Company, The
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?