Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Benjamin Kemper v. Micronet

Date: 10-04-2021

Case Number: 2:19-cv-00428-DBB

Judge: David Barlow

Court: United States District Court for the District of Utah (Salt Lake County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Best Salt Lake City Employment Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Sean A. Monson and Susan Baird Motschiedler

Description:

Salt Lake City, Utah employment law lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a Fair Labor Standards Act violation theory.

"Micronet has more than three decades of experience in the development, manufacture and marketing of mobile computing platforms for integration into ï¬‚eet management and mobile workforce management solutions."

Outcome:

osed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties concerned, and that the attorney fee award is reasonable, the court approves the proposed settlement. The action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge David Barlow on 10/04/2021. (jl) (Entered: 10/04/2021)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Benjamin Kemper v. Micronet?

The outcome was: osed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties concerned, and that the attorney fee award is reasonable, the court approves the proposed settlement. The action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge David Barlow on 10/04/2021. (jl) (Entered: 10/04/2021)

Which court heard Benjamin Kemper v. Micronet?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Utah (Salt Lake County), UT. The presiding judge was David Barlow.

Who were the attorneys in Benjamin Kemper v. Micronet?

Plaintiff's attorney: Best Salt Lake City Employment Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Sean A. Monson and Susan Baird Motschiedler.

When was Benjamin Kemper v. Micronet decided?

This case was decided on October 4, 2021.