Woodfaulk v. Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City
Plaintiff: Sharon K Woodfaulk
Defendant: Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City
Case Number: 5:2015cv00777
Filed: July 16, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Office: Oklahoma City Office
County: Oklahoma
Presiding Judge: David L. Russell
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Quash; as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 1/22/16. (jw)
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 Oklahoma Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Woodfaulk v. Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sharon K Woodfaulk
Represented By: Mark E Hammons
Represented By: Amber L Hurst
Represented By: Christine Coleman Vizcaino
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: Mercy Hospital Oklahoma City
Represented By: Nathan L Whatley
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?