BELLFLOWER MEDICAL CENTER et al v. SEBELIUS

Plaintiff: BELLFLOWER MEDICAL CENTER and LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN MEDICAL CENTER
Defendant: KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Case Number: 1:2012cv01768
Filed: October 31, 2012
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Washington, DC Office
County: 88888
Presiding Judge: James E. Boasberg
Nature of Suit: Contract: Recovery Medicare
Cause of Action: 42:2005 Review of Agency Action-HHS
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 District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BELLFLOWER MEDICAL CENTER et al v. SEBELIUS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: BELLFLOWER MEDICAL CENTER
Represented By: Lori Allison Rubin
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: LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN MEDICAL CENTER
Represented By: Lori Allison Rubin
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: KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Represented By: Peter C. Pfaffenroth
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.