Carroll v. Stryker Corporation
Plaintiff: Matthew Carroll
Defendant: Stryker Corporation
Case Number: 3:2009cv00029
Filed: January 15, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Office: Contract: Other Office
County: Dane
Presiding Judge: Stephen L. Crocker
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER denying 46 Motion to Amend Complaint ; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment to be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 11/20/09. (rep)
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 Wisconsin Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Carroll v. Stryker Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Matthew Carroll
Represented By: A. Steven Porter
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: Stryker Corporation
Represented By: Sarah Anne Zylstra
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?