Gerdes et al v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Plaintiff: Roger Gerdes and Rosemary Gerdes
Defendant: Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2012cv00257
Filed: December 9, 2012
Court: Kentucky Eastern District Court
Office: Covington Office
County: Boone
Presiding Judge: David L. Bunning
Referring Judge: J. Gregory Wehrman
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Gerdes et al v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Roger Gerdes
Represented By: Roger N. Braden
Represented By: John C. Whitfield
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: Rosemary Gerdes
Represented By: John C. Whitfield
Represented By: Roger N. Braden
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: Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
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.