Dalsin et al v. Marianne's Roofing Company, LLC
Mark Conroy, Robert Dalsin, Chris Cronin, James Hadel, Kinsey Robinson, Roofers Local No. 96 Health and Welfare Fund, National Roofing Industry Pension Fund, the and Roofers and Waterproofers Research and Education Joint Trust Fund, the |
Marianne's Roofing Company LLC |
0:2018cv00436 |
February 14, 2018 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
DMN Office |
Hennepin |
Steven E. Rau |
John R. Tunheim |
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 46 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 39 Plaintiffs' Request for Fees and Costs and finding defendant in contempt of court (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 9/7/2018. (HAZ) |
Filing 37 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting in part and denying in part 24 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding of Civil Contempt (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 6/22/2018. (HAZ) |
Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting 4 Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Mark Conroy, National Roofing Industry Pension Fund, the, Roofers and Waterproofers Research and Education Joint Trust Fund, the, Chris Cronin, Kinsey Robinson, Roofers Local No. 96 Health and Welfare Fund, James Hadel, Robert Dalsin (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 3/28/2018. (HAZ) |
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.