Tate et al v. Restaurant Technologies, Inc. et al
| Michael Tate, Joseph Shuster and Jack Ayers |
| Robert E. Weil, Jonathon O. Grad, Philip A. Clough, John C. Rutherford, Restaurant Technologies, Inc., Jeffrey Keisel and John Does 1-5 |
| 0:2009cv02076 |
| August 6, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Hennepin |
| Davis |
| Graham |
| Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity - Stockholders Suits |
| 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
193
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 192 Report and Recommendation(Written Opinion)The Trusts Motion Requesting Court to Find Claims Were Timely as a Result of Excusable Neglect and Allowing Participation in Settlement Fund Distribution of Class Member W. Hall Wendel, Jr. Revocable Trust (Doc. No. 175) is GRANTED. The Trust shall be allowed to participate in the distribution of settlement funds and receive its proportionate share of the settlement proceeds in the above-captioned action, and the Claims Administrator and Class Representatives shall ensure immediate distribution of the same. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 8/12/11. (KMW)
|
|
Filing
174
ORDER APPROVING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AWARD TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND DISTRIBUTION. 151 (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 11/29/10. (GRR)
|
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
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.
