Darst v. Acosta Sales and Marketing et al
| Bernie Darst |
| Acosta Sales and Marketing and Acosta Military Sales, LLC |
| 3:2015cv00056 |
| February 9, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
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
35
ORDER DISMISSING CASE -The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if necessary. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-6-2016. (de)
|
|
Filing
34
ENRY AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 7-21-2016. (de)
|
|
Filing
28
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL (DOC. 26 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5/31/16. (ep)
|
|
Filing
17
AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 1/28/2016. (art)
|
|
Filing
13
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 11/17/2015. (art)
|
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.
