Brooks v. Chubb & Son et al

Defendant: Chubb Severance Plan and Chubb & Son
Plaintiff: Mary Irene Brooks
Case Number: 2:2013cv00056
Filed: January 9, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Yavapai
Presiding Judge: Steven P Logan
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Brooks v. Chubb & Son et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Chubb Severance Plan
Represented By: Christie Lynn Kriegsfeld
Represented By: Mark Ogden
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Chubb & Son
Represented By: Christie Lynn Kriegsfeld
Represented By: Mark Ogden
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mary Irene Brooks
Represented By: Thomas Timothy Griffin
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.