Rahm v. TCF National Bank
Plaintiff: Douglas V. Rahm
Defendant: TCF National Bank
Case Number: 4:2017cv04018
Filed: February 13, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of South Dakota
Office: Southern Division Office
County: Lincoln
Presiding Judge: Lawrence L. Piersol
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 28 Memorandum Opinion and ORDER granting 11 Motion to Compel Arbitration; granting 19 Motion to Take Judicial Notice. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 8/21/17. (SLW)
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 South Dakota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rahm v. TCF National Bank
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Douglas V. Rahm
Represented By: Meghann M. Joyce
Represented By: David C. Stoos
Represented By: Jason R. Sutton
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: TCF National Bank
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?