Sanderford v. Creek Casino Montgomery

Plaintiff: Pamela Sanderford
Defendant: Creek Casino Montgomery
Case Number: 2:2012cv00455
Filed: May 25, 2012
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Elmore
Referring Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: William Keith Watkins
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 05:8101
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
January 10, 2013 13 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 5 MOTION to Dismiss; plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; further ORDERING that plaintiff's 2 MOTION to employ an attorney is DENIED as moot, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/10/13. (djy, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sanderford v. Creek Casino Montgomery
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Pamela Sanderford
Represented By: Cathy Brown Donohoe
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: Creek Casino Montgomery
Represented By: Maria lynda N. Lyles
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.


Why Is My Information Online?