Luithardt v. Humana Health Plan, Inc. et al

Plaintiff: Otto Luithardt
Defendant: Humana Health Plan, Inc. and Heatlh Care Partners Nevada
Case Number: 2:2013cv00223
Filed: February 8, 2013
Court: Nevada District Court
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Miranda M. Du
Referring Judge: Carl W. Hoffman
Nature of Suit: Contract: Recovery Medicare
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Luithardt v. Humana Health Plan, 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: Otto Luithardt
Represented By: James R. Cox
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: Humana Health Plan, Inc.
Represented By: Karl L. Nielson
Represented By: Andrew M Federhar
Represented By: Douglas M. Cohen
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: Heatlh Care Partners Nevada
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.