Partington v. Intek Plastics, Inc.
Plaintiff: Judith Partington
Defendant: Intek Plastics, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2008cv04614
Filed: July 9, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Dakota
Presiding Judge: Doty
Presiding Judge: Mayeron
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
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
December 28, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 12/28/2009. (PJM)
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: Partington v. Intek Plastics, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Judith Partington
Represented By: John-NA C. Syverson
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: Intek Plastics, Inc.
Represented By: Joel E Abrahamson
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?