Semack v. 35 Hamden Hills Drive Hamden, LLC
Plaintiff: Leslie Semack
Defendant: 35 Hamden Hills Drive Hamden, LLC
Case Number: 3:2012cv01057
Filed: July 18, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: New Haven
Presiding Judge: Janet Bond Arterton
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 31, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion 12 to Remand to State Court is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/30/2013. (Bonneau, J)
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Semack v. 35 Hamden Hills Drive Hamden, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Leslie Semack
Represented By: Michael W. Cahill
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: 35 Hamden Hills Drive Hamden, LLC
Represented By: Kent Scott Griggs
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.


Why Is My Information Online?