Adams v. High Purity Systems, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Barry Adams
Defendant: High Purity Systems, Inc. and Norman Jones
Case Number: 1:2009cv00354
Filed: April 1, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: Out of State
Presiding Judge: John F. Anderson
Presiding Judge: Gerald Bruce Lee
Nature of Suit: Both
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1441 Notice of Removal E.R.I.S.A. Employee Benefits
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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Adams v. High Purity Systems, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Barry Adams
Represented By: Mariam Ebrahimi
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: High Purity Systems, Inc.
Represented By: Shannon Hadley Rutngamlug
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: Norman Jones
Represented By: Shannon Hadley Rutngamlug
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?