Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc.
| CHERYL KATER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
| CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky corporation |
| 16-35010 |
| January 6, 2016 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Personal Property Damage |
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellant,: CHERYL KATER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated | |
| Represented By: | Ryan D. Andrews |
| Represented By: | Rafey S. Balabanian |
| Represented By: | Clifford Cantor |
| Represented By: | Roger J. Perlstadt |
| Represented By: | Benjamin H. Richman |
| Represented By: | Alexander Glenn Tievsky |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee,: CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky corporation | |
| Represented By: | Matthew Robert Berry |
| Represented By: | Andres Christopher Healy |
| Represented By: | Robert Rivera |
| Represented By: | Steven M. Seigel |
| Represented By: | Brooke Ashley May Taylor |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
