EDWARDS AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY v. AEROUSA, INC. et al

Defendant: GE CAPITAL AVIATION SERVICES, LLC and AEROUSA, INC.
Plaintiff: EDWARDS AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY
Case Number: 1:2010cv00216
Filed: March 17, 2010
Court: North Carolina Middle District Court
Office: NCMD Office
0 Judge:
Referring Judge: L. PATRICK AULD
Presiding Judge: UNASSIGNED
Nature of Suit: Airplane
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Notice of Removal-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: EDWARDS AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY v. AEROUSA, INC. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GE CAPITAL AVIATION SERVICES, LLC
Represented By: PAMELA S. DUFFY
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: AEROUSA, INC.
Represented By: PAMELA S. DUFFY
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: EDWARDS AVIATION SERVICES COMPANY
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.