Calvin Brain International Company v. Gustto, Inc.
||Calvin Brain International Company
||January 28, 2013
||California Southern District Court
||San Diego Office
||XX Outside US
||Gonzalo P. Curiel
||Barbara Lynn Major
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|April 3, 2014
ORDER Granting 21 Motion to Correct Name; Granting 20 Motion for Default Judgment. (1) The Clerk of Court is directed to modify the docket in this matter to reflect Plaintiff's true name: Calvin Brian International Company; (2) The Cle rk of Court is directed to enter Defendant's default; (3) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final default judgment in favor of plaintiff Calvin Brian International Company and against defendant Gustto, Inc. in the total amount of $3 77,712.45, which includes $75,542.49 in prejudgment interest. Post-judgment interest shall accrue in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961; (4) The hearing currently set for April 4, 2014, is Vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 4/3/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)
|July 17, 2014
ORDER Granting 28 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment. On or before July 25, 2014, Plaintiff shall lodge a proposed amended default judgment; The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion, set for July 18, 2014, is Vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/17/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)
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 California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.