Gabel Contracting Inc v. Carlisle Construction Materials Incorporated et al

Defendant: Insulfoam LLC and Carlisle Construction Materials Incorporated
Plaintiff: Gabel Contracting Inc
Case Number: 3:2013cv05163
Filed: March 6, 2013
Court: Washington Western District Court
Office: Tacoma Office
County: XX US, Outside District
Presiding Judge: Ronald B. Leighton
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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: Gabel Contracting Inc v. Carlisle Construction Materials Incorporated et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Insulfoam LLC
Represented By: Andrew C Gauen
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: Carlisle Construction Materials Incorporated
Represented By: Andrew C Gauen
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: Gabel Contracting Inc
Represented By: J Kurt Kraemer
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.