LUTZ v. PATO
Plaintiff: RICHARD LUTZ
Defendant: RUI M PATO
Case Number: 2:2014cv00228
Filed: July 21, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Terre Haute Office
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Presiding Judge: William G. Hussmann
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 23, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER - To ensure that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an Amended Local Rule 81-1 Statement by September 30, 2014, that properly sets forth the parties' citizenship rather than their residency. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/23/2014.(RSF)
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: LUTZ v. PATO
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: RUI M PATO
Represented By: Pamela A. Paige
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: RICHARD LUTZ
Represented By: Terry R. Modesitt
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?