Boards of Trustees of Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs v. Dixon Masonry Inc. et al
Boards of Trustees of Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs |
Dixon Masonry Inc. and Elmer Dixon |
2:2009cv01013 |
November 10, 2009 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Columbus Office |
ADAMS |
Mark R. Abel |
Algenon L. Marbley |
None |
29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 36 OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Motions for Unpaid Contributions and Attorney's Fees are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for the Enforcement of Sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff Board of Trustees is hereby entitled to recover from Dixon Masonr y, jointly and severally, $9,053.10, including unpaid fringe benefit contributions through October, 2008, and prejudgment interest and liquidated damages, plus attorneys' fees of $5,150.00. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 8/25/2011. (pes1) |
Filing 25 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Contempt and HOLDS DEFENDANTS MASONRY DIXON INC. AND ELMER DIXON IN CONTEMPT. Defendants must produce the relevant documents outlined in the Courts April 6, 2010 Order WITHIN TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS OR DER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MUST REACH A RESOLUTION WITH PLAINTIFF AND ITS COUNSEL FOR DELIVERY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITHIN THIS PERIOD. Adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 1/26/2011. (cw) |
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 Ohio Southern 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.