WATERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. MILLER et al
| WATERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM |
| ALAN B. MILLER, MARC D. MILLER, STEVE G. FILTON, DEBRA K. OSTEEN, MARVIN G. PEMBER, ANTHONY PANTALEONI, LAWRENCE S. GIBBS, JOHN H. HERRELL, ROBERT H. HOTZ, EILEEN C. MCDONNELL and UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. |
| 2:2017cv02595 |
| June 9, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Outside the State of PA. |
| LAWRENCE F. STENGEL |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 |
| 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
7
ORDER THAT AMALGAMATED'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. CENTRAL LABORERS' MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE ABOVE CATIONS ARE CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES INOT ONE ACTION, ALONG WITH ANY FUTURE-FILED OR TRANSFERRED ACTI ON ASSERTING SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., AND ARISING OUT OF FEDERAL SECURITIES LAW. AMALGAMATED BANK LONGVIEW FUNDS IS APPOINTED LEAD PLAINTIFF IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACTION. THE LAW FIRM OF SCOTT & SCOTT IS APPOINTED LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE PLAITNIFFS. THE AXELROD FIRM IS APPOINTED LIAISON COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, ETC. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 3/29/18. 3/30/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )
|
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.
