Watkins v. Aerotek Energy Services et al

Defendant: Aerotek, Inc. and Aerotek Energy Services
Plaintiff: Richard Watkins
Case Number: 6:2013cv00022
Filed: January 11, 2013
Court: Oklahoma Eastern District Court
Office: Muskogee Office
County: Muskogee
Presiding Judge: James H. Payne
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
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 Oklahoma Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Watkins v. Aerotek Energy Services et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Aerotek, Inc.
Represented By: Kristen L. Brightmire
Represented By: William E. Corum
Represented By: Megan A. Scheiderer
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: Aerotek Energy Services
Represented By: Kristen L. Brightmire
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: Richard Watkins
Represented By: Scott Gallagher
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.