RMT International, Corp. et al v. Poly Plant Project, Inc.

Plaintiff: Dr. Daniel A. Huber and RMT International, Corp.
Defendant: Poly Plant Project, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2012cv01023
Filed: June 8, 2012
Court: Oregon District Court
Office: Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge: Michael W. Mosman
Nature of Suit: Assault Libel & Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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

Search for this case: RMT International, Corp. et al v. Poly Plant Project, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dr. Daniel A. Huber
Represented By: Michael M. Ratoza
Represented By: Megan S. Cook
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: RMT International, Corp.
Represented By: Megan S. Cook
Represented By: Michael M. Ratoza
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: Poly Plant Project, Inc.
Represented By: Stephen H. Galloway
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.