Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC et al
| Alexander M. Shukh |
| Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, Unknown Owners and Assignees and Seagate Technology, LLC |
| 0:2010cv00404 |
| February 16, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Scott |
| Keyes |
| Tunheim |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
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
537
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 531 Motion for Review and Modificiation of the Cost Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on September 2, 2014. (DML)
|
|
Filing
514
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 443 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; denying as moot 448 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; denying as moot 454 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; granting 465 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 480 Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 31, 2014. (HAZ)
|
|
Filing
512
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Affirming District Court Decision 412 ORDER RE: APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge; denying 413 Motion to Bar the Expert Report and Testimony of defendants' Expert Bajorek (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on September 30, 2013. (DML)
|
|
Filing
505
ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 426 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 1. Plaintiff's motion with respect to his fraud claim (Count V) is denied as moot. 2. Plainti ff's motion with respect to Seagate's request for monetary damages in connection with its breach of contract counterclaim is granted. The claim for monetary damages is dismissed with prejudice. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on July 3, 2013. (DML)
|
|
Filing
439
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendants' 313 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Fraud Claim (Claim Five) and Correction of Inventorship Claim (Claim Two). Count two and count five of Plaintiff's Third Amendment Complaint are dismissed with prejudice(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 25, 2013. (DML)
|
|
Filing
387
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER overruling plaintiff's 350 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION; affirming Maigstrate Judge's 344 Order(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on January 3, 2013. (DML)
|
|
Filing
322
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendants' 270 Motion to Dismiss or Strike Shukh's Title VII Punitive Damages Claim(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on July 3, 2012. (DML)
|
|
Filing
242
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) Granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 150 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims. Motion is denied as to defendants' counterclaim f or breach of contract. Motion is granted as to defendants' counterclaims for conversion and replevin. (2) Ganting in part and denying in part defendants' 169 Motion for Summary Judgment. Moti on is granted as to defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract. Motion is denied as moot as to defendants' counterclaims for conversion and replevin.(3) Denying as moot defendants' [16 9] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (4) Denying defendants' 169 motion for the return of documents under the inherent authority of the Court. (5) Denying plaintiff 9;s 214 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on the Grounds of Mootnees Based on Changed Circumstances. (6) Based upon the Court's granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to its counterclaim for breach of contract, Shukh shall return all documents at issue within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on November 30, 2011. (DML)
|
|
Filing
220
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 179 Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on October 18, 2011. (DML)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER denying plaintiff's 171 Letter request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration to the Court's 140 Memorandum, Opinion and Order (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on July 18, 2011. (DML)
|
|
Filing
140
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (1) denying plaintiff's 57 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on His Second Claim for Relief. (2) denying plaintiff's 65 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (3) denying as moot plaintiff's 78 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Thirteenth Claim for Relief For a Declaratory Judgment Regarding the Unenforceability of The Confidentiality and Document Return Provisions of His E mployment Agreement. (4) granting in part and denying in part defendants' 14 Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Motion is granted as to Claims Three, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, and Thirteen and those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Motion is denied in all other respects.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 30, 2011. (DML)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER GRANTING 72 Motion to Seal (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on October 13, 2010. (HAM)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER re 39 Stipulation of Dismissal, filed by Seagate Technology, Alexander M. Shukh, Seagate Technology, LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Plaintiff's first claim for relief is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on September 13, 2010. (HAM)
|
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.
