SENIOURS v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC et al

Plaintiff: TAMICA M SENIOURS
Defendant: GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC and ARMAND D MCBRIDE
Case Number: 1:2012cv00626
Filed: May 9, 2012
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Office: Indianapolis Office
Referring Judge: Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

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

Search for this case: SENIOURS v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: TAMICA M SENIOURS
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: GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC
Represented By: Bonnie L. Gallivan
Represented By: Gregory W. Pottorff
Represented By: Katherine A. Winchester
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: ARMAND D MCBRIDE
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.