Cook et al v. Jones & Jordan Engineering, Inc. et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit West Virginia Southern District Cook et al v. Jones & Jordan Engineering, Inc. et al

Cook et al v. Jones & Jordan Engineering, Inc. et al

Case Number:	5:2006cv00627
Filed:	August 11, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Beckley Office
Presiding Judge:	Thomas E. Johnston
Nature of Suit:	Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
September 29, 2009	Filing 170 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 161 Plaintiff's Petition for Attorney Fees; the Court awards Plaintiffs the sum of $96,040.50 in attorneys' fees plus costs of $4,463.20 for a total of $100,503.70; the other issues in this case having been resolved, this civil action is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/29/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)
January 7, 2009	Filing 138 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: granting 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying 120 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur-reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 106 MOTION for Summar y Judgment; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 8 is GRANTED as to liability; Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 7 is GRANTED as to liability only to the extent that it applies to Defendants ' commingling premium contributions of the Plan, but Plaintiffs' Motion is otherwise DENIED on Count 7; the Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 9 through 11 and for damages is DENIED; the 27 Amended Third-Party Complaint is DISMISSED and Third-Party Defendant, Mountain State Blue Cross & Blue Shield is DISMISSED as a party. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/7/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 29, 2009

Filing 170 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 161 Plaintiff's Petition for Attorney Fees; the Court awards Plaintiffs the sum of $96,040.50 in attorneys' fees plus costs of $4,463.20 for a total of $100,503.70; the other issues in this case having been resolved, this civil action is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/29/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds)

January 7, 2009

Filing 138 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: granting 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying 120 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur-reply to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 106 MOTION for Summar y Judgment; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 1 through 6 and Count 8 is GRANTED as to liability; Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 7 is GRANTED as to liability only to the extent that it applies to Defendants ' commingling premium contributions of the Plan, but Plaintiffs' Motion is otherwise DENIED on Count 7; the Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 9 through 11 and for damages is DENIED; the 27 Amended Third-Party Complaint is DISMISSED and Third-Party Defendant, Mountain State Blue Cross & Blue Shield is DISMISSED as a party. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 1/7/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cook et al v. Jones & Jordan Engineering, Inc. 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.

Why Is My Information Online?