Chen et al v. Dougherty et al
2:2004cv00987 |
April 30, 2004 |
US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
Seattle Office |
Marsha J. Pechman |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 561 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 531 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting in part and denying in part 537 Motion for Attorney Fees, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LG) |
Filing 529 ORDER ON POST TRIAL MOTIONS granting plaintiff's 502 Motion for Judgment; granting plaintiffs' 503 Motion for Judgment; denying dfts' 504 Motion for judgment as matter of law ; denying dfts' 507 Motion for entry of findings of facts by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS) |
Filing 425 ORDER on remaining issues of protected speech: the Court finds that Mr. Chen and Mr. Barahimi's union grievance constitutes protected speech, as does Mr. Barahimi's 2004 lawsuit. However, the Court refrains from ruling on whether Mr. Barah imi may pursue his claim of retaliation for bringing the 2004 lawsuit until additional briefing is submitted by the parties. Plaintiff's response on this issue is due 3/4/09 and Defendants' reply is due 3/6/09. by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LG) |
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 Washington Western 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
Search for this case: Chen et al v. Dougherty et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.