RDM ENTERPRISES INC v. PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Plaintiff: RDM ENTERPRISES INC
Defendant: PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY and NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY
Case Number: 2:2012cv00096
Filed: March 19, 2012
Court: Maine District Court
Office: Portland Office
County: Androscoggin
Presiding Judge: D. BROCK HORNBY
Referring Judge: JOHN H. RICH
Nature of Suit: Withdrawal
Cause of Action: 28:0157
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 Maine District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: RDM ENTERPRISES INC v. PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: RDM ENTERPRISES INC
Represented By: JAMES D. POLIQUIN
Represented By: WILLIAM A. FOGEL
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: PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY
Represented By: JOHN S. WHITMAN
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: NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY
Represented By: JOHN S. WHITMAN
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.