TRECHAK v. SETON COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN et al
| PERRY TRECHAK |
| SETON COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN, SETON COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN TO PROVIDE PRE-TRA 86 BENEFITS, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, SETON COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN TO PROVIDE PRE-TRA 86 BENEFITS, MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 1986 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 1986 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 1994 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 1994 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, SETON COMPANY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, SETON COMPANY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN, SETON COMPANY, PHILIP KALTENBACHER, HERMANN KAMPLING and PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, SETON COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN |
| 2:2010cv00227 |
| January 19, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Outside the State of PA. |
| MICHAEL M. BAYLSON |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement |
| 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
26
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE AS TO COUNT TWO WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO COUNT THREE, DENIED AS TO COUNT FOUR. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY ONE DAYS; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 11/24/10. 11/24/10 ENTERED AND E-MAILED AND FAXED.(jl, )
|
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 Pennsylvania 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
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.
