Masino et al v. Alza Construction Corp.
| 1:2009cv04720 |
| November 2, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. Office |
| Nina Gershon |
| Robert M. Levy |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement |
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
28
CLERK'S JUDGMENT directing that Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is granted; and that judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs Vincent Masino, Keith Loscalzo, Francisco Fernandez, Anthony Fasulo, Philip A. Faicco and James K ilkenny, as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Pavers and Road Builders District Council Welfare, Pension, Annuity and Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Training Funds and against Defendant Alza Construction Corp., for a total award of $163,641.09. Ordered by Michele Gapinski, Chief Deputy for Court Operation on 3/16/2012. c/m with appeal pkg. (Fernandez, Erica)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations as to 23 regarding 18 Motion for Default Judgment. Ordered by Senior Judge Nina Gershon on 3/14/2012. (Joe, Victor)
|
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 New York Eastern 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
| Search for this case: Masino et al v. Alza Construction Corp. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
