Bigham et al v. R&S Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.
| James Bigham, John Quarnstrom, Robert Vranicar, Jim Bowman, Mike McCauley, Matt Fairbanks and The Sheet Metal Local #10 Control Board Trust Fund |
| R&S Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. |
| 0:2014cv01357 |
| April 30, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Ramsey |
| Michael J. Davis |
| Franklin L. Noel |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1131 |
| 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
146
ORDER denying 133 Motion for Order to Show Cause; granting in part and denying in part 133 Motion to Compel. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 10/7/2021. (DMM)
|
|
Filing
110
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 96 ) is GRANTED as discussed herein. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/17/2020. (las)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER. 1. That the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. No. 77 ) is GRANTED in its entirety. 2. That judgment in the amount of $2,058,871.10 is hereby entered against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs for delinquent contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney fees and costs for the audit period of November 1, 2012 through April 30, 2014. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/21/2017. (BJS)
|
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.
