Powell v. CasePro, Incorporated

Plaintiff: Connie Marie Powell
Defendant: CasePro, Incorporated
Case Number: 2:2014cv00172
Filed: February 4, 2014
Court: Washington Western District Court
Office: Seattle Office
County: Snohomish
Presiding Judge: Richard A Jones
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
May 7, 2015 35 Opinion or Order of the Court MINUTE ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The court finds that the 34 stipulation complies with Local Rule 83.2 and directs the clerk to terminate Joseph W. Moore and Moore & Dudley Law Firm PLLC as counsel. (LMK)

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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Powell v. CasePro, Incorporated
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Connie Marie Powell
Represented By: Joel P Nichols(Designation Retained)
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: CasePro, Incorporated
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.