Anderson et al v. Powers et al
| Jeff Anderson, Dan Clay, Tabatha Harris, Steve Konopa and Ken Spray |
| Scott Powers, Craig Danielson, Stephen Erdmann, David Johns and Carl Wojciechowski |
| 6:2009cv06252 |
| September 8, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Eugene Office |
| Marion |
| Thomas M. Coffin |
| None |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits |
| None |
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
39
ORDERED: Motion to Dismiss 13 and Motion for Summary Judgment 13 : 1. The deadlock by the Board of Trustees of the Oregon Retail Employees Pension Trust ("Fund") over whether to elect an extension of Green Zone status pursuant to Section 204 of the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 ("WRERA") is referred to arbitration and this case is stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings. Included in the scope of this referral are the issues rais ed by Defendants and Counterclaimants in their Counterclaim; and 2. The Court is of the opinion that the Internal Revenue Service may have the ability to expeditiously advise the parties as to the validity of the filing by the Union Trustee on 6/29/09. The parties are therefore to consider submitting a joint request to the Internal Revenue Service on this question. Signed on 11/17/09 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb)
|
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 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.
