Smith v. Atrium Medical Corporation
Carl Smith |
Atrium Medical Corporation |
2:2014cv00418 |
February 25, 2014 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
New Orleans Office |
Tangipahoa |
Karen Wells Roby |
Sarah S. Vance |
Personal Injury- Product Liability |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 45 ORDER & REASONS denying 25 Motion entry of a Lone Pine Order; denying as moot 44 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 10/21/2014. (mmm) |
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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Smith v. Atrium Medical Corporation | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Atrium Medical Corporation | |
Represented By: | Stanton E. Shuler, Jr. |
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 ] |
Plaintiff: Carl Smith | |
Represented By: | Randall Earl Hart |
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.