Sheasly v. The Orr Felt Company

Sheasly v. The Orr Felt Company

Plaintiff:	Steve Sheasly
Defendant:	The Orr Felt Company
Case Number:	3:2010cv00956
Filed:	August 13, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Portland Office
Presiding Judge:	Paul Papak
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
December 1, 2010	Filing 15 Order. The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Papak's Opinion and Order 11 granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion 3 to Dismiss for Improper Venue. Accordingly, this matter has been properly transferred to the District Cour t for the Southern District of Ohio. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to provide a copy of this Order to the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. Signed on 12/1/2010 by Judge Anna J. Brown. 14 page Order attached. (bb)
October 25, 2010	Filing 11 OPINION & ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 3 for improper venue is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Specifically, the motion is Granted to the extent Orr seeks through it to enforce the parties' contractual forum selection clause, and Denied to the extent 0rr requests that Plaintiff Sheasley's claims be dismissed. Plaintiff Sheasley's claims in this action are, instead, Ordered Transferred to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. Signed on 10/25/10 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 1, 2010

Filing 15 Order. The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Papak's Opinion and Order 11 granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion 3 to Dismiss for Improper Venue. Accordingly, this matter has been properly transferred to the District Cour t for the Southern District of Ohio. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to provide a copy of this Order to the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. Signed on 12/1/2010 by Judge Anna J. Brown. 14 page Order attached. (bb)

October 25, 2010

Filing 11 OPINION & ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 3 for improper venue is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Specifically, the motion is Granted to the extent Orr seeks through it to enforce the parties' contractual forum selection clause, and Denied to the extent 0rr requests that Plaintiff Sheasley's claims be dismissed. Plaintiff Sheasley's claims in this action are, instead, Ordered Transferred to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. Signed on 10/25/10 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sheasly v. The Orr Felt Company
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steve Sheasly
Represented By:	Richard C. Busse
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: The Orr Felt Company
Represented By:	Devra S. Hermosilla
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?