Coleman v. Canada Life Assurance Company et al

Plaintiff: Tommie J. Coleman
Defendant: Canada Life Assurance Company and Brammer Engineering, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2011cv00495
Filed: August 5, 2011
Court: Mississippi Southern District Court
Office: Jackson Office
County: Copiah
Referring Judge: F. Keith Ball
Presiding Judge: Daniel P. Jordan
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 29:1001
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 Mississippi Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Coleman v. Canada Life Assurance 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: Tommie J. Coleman
Represented By: Kathryn L. White
Represented By: James D. Shannon
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: Canada Life Assurance Company
Represented By: William F. Ray
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: Brammer Engineering, Inc.
Represented By: Brian A. Cowan
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.