UNITED REFINING COMPANY INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES et al v. MORRISON et al
Plaintiff: UNITED REFINING COMPANY INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES and ROBERT KAEMMERER
Defendant: DALLAS Q. MORRISON and MARK WILLIAM PRATT
Case Number: 1:2012cv00238
Filed: October 2, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office: Erie Office
County: Warren
Presiding Judge: Sean J. McLaughlin
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for costs and attorney's fees (10), as supplemented by declaration (29), is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Plaintiffs' attorney's fees for Attorney Christopher J . Rillo is GRANTED in the amount of $2,725.00; Plaintiffs' attorney's fees for their local counsel MacDonald Illig Jones & Britton LLP, is GRANTED in the amount of $2,952.00; Plaintiffs' costs are GRANTED in the amount of � 36;399.75; and Plaintiffs' request for fees and costs in excess of these amounts is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation (41) of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on December 23, 2013, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/10/14. (rlh)
November 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER: In accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion filed simultaneously herewith 39 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 33 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by MARK WILLIAM PRATT is GRANTED; the 15 Motion for Summar y Judgment filed by DALLAS Q. MORRISON is DENIED; JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of Defendant, Mark William Pratt and against Defendant Dallas Q. Morrison, with respect to all right, title and interest as the beneficiary in the account of James Jacobs with the United Refining Company Incentive Plan for Hourly Employees. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/22/2013. (rlh)
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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: UNITED REFINING COMPANY INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES et al v. MORRISON et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: UNITED REFINING COMPANY INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES
Represented By: Marissa Savastana Watts
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 ]
Plaintiff: ROBERT KAEMMERER
Represented By: Marissa Savastana Watts
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: DALLAS Q. MORRISON
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: MARK WILLIAM PRATT
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?