Pham v. Tyson Farms, Inc.
Plaintiff: Thang Quoc Pham
Defendant: Tyson Farms, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2017cv00125
Filed: February 23, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Office: Northern (Jackson) Office
County: Scott
Presiding Judge: F. Keith Ball
Presiding Judge: Daniel P. Jordan
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 30, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 58 Motion to Strike for the reasons set out in the Order. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on August 30, 2018. (SP)
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 Mississippi Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pham v. Tyson Farms, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Thang Quoc Pham
Represented By: Edward Taylor Polk
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: Tyson Farms, Inc.
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?