SAJID v. IJAZ et al
| MUHAMMAD SAJID |
| MOHAMMAD IJAZ and SHAISTA IJAZ |
| 2:2018cv01899 |
| May 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Outside the State of PA. |
| WENDY BEETLESTONE |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| 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
36
ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF MUHAMMAD SAJID, AND AGIANST DEFENDANT MOHAMMAD IJAZ, IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,000 FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR COMMON LAW FRAUD. JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF MUHAMMAD SAJID, AND AGI ANST DEFENDANT MOHAMMAD IJAZ, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR COMMON LAW FRAUD. JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF MUHAMMAD SAJID, AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MOHAMMAD IJAZ, FOR COMMON LAW BREACH OF CONTRACT. JUDGMENT BE ENTER ED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT MOHAMMAD IJAZ AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF MUHAMMAD SAJID FOR COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHEMENT, VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND VIOLATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW. JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SHAISTA IJAZ AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF MUHAMMAD SAJID ON ALL COUNTS. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 8/9/2019. 8/13/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )
|
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.
