Rushton v. Bevan et al

Petitioner: Benedict Bichler and David Bevan
Respondent: Kenneth A. Rushton
Case Number: 2:2012cv01004
Filed: October 26, 2012
Court: Utah District Court
Office: Central Office
County: Salt Lake
Presiding Judge: Bruce S. Jenkins
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawl
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference
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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rushton v. Bevan et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Benedict Bichler
Represented By: Douglas M. Monson
Represented By: Michael R. Johnson
Represented By: Craig Carlile
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 ]
Petitioner: David Bevan
Represented By: Douglas M. Monson
Represented By: Michael R. Johnson
Represented By: Craig Carlile
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 ]
Respondent: Kenneth A. Rushton
Represented By: Glenn R. Bronson
Represented By: James C Swindler
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.