Angerosa v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America et al

Defendant: Idex Corporation Personal Choicecomp Plan and Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Plaintiff: Athena Angerosa
Case Number: 3:2013cv01563
Filed: July 3, 2013
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Referring Judge: David H. Bartick
Presiding Judge: Roger T. Benitez
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.
Jury Demanded By: None

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 California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Angerosa v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Idex Corporation Personal Choicecomp Plan
Represented By: Robert Edward Hess
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: Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Represented By: Robert Edward Hess
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: Athena Angerosa
Represented By: John P. Stennett
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.