Mackenzie v. Vitullo-Martin
Plaintiff: Christopher Mackenzie
Defendant: Thomas Vitullo-Martin
Case Number: 1:2013cv00904
Filed: December 12, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: HAMILTON
Presiding Judge: Michael R. Barrett
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Substitute Party. Estate of Thomas Vitullo-Martin added. Thomas Vitullo-Martin terminated. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 7/29/14. (ba1)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mackenzie v. Vitullo-Martin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Mackenzie
Represented By: Joseph Michael Lyon
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Thomas Vitullo-Martin
Represented By: Patrick J Deininger
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?