Urrea De Gamez v. J.C. Penney Corporation Incorporated et al

Defendant: Unknown Parties and J.C. Penney Corporation Incorporated
Plaintiff: Georgina Urrea De Gamez
Case Number: 4:2013cv00169
Filed: March 15, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Raner C Collins
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Urrea De Gamez v. J.C. Penney Corporation 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: Unknown Parties
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: J.C. Penney Corporation Incorporated
Represented By: Elizabeth Savoini Fitch(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 ]
Plaintiff: Georgina Urrea De Gamez
Represented By: Tammy R Carter(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 ]

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.