MOORE v. THRIVE ALLIANCE, INC. et al

Plaintiff: LOREALEE MOORE
Defendant: AGING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA, INC. and THRIVE ALLIANCE, INC.
Case Number: 1:2013cv01030
Filed: June 28, 2013
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Office: Indianapolis Office
Referring Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MOORE v. THRIVE ALLIANCE, INC. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: LOREALEE MOORE
Represented By: Mark W. Sniderman
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: AGING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES OF SOUTH CENTRAL INDIANA, INC.
Represented By: Michael Patrick McIver
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: THRIVE ALLIANCE, INC.
Represented By: Michael Patrick McIver
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.