Camacho Family Partnership v. Patricia I. Romero, Inc.
Plaintiff: Camacho Family Partnership
Defendant: Patricia I. Romero, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2013cv00026
Filed: December 31, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Guam
Office: Hagatna Office
County: Guam
Presiding Judge: Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
Presiding Judge: Joaquin V.E. Manibusan
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
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
June 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 226 Order granting in part and denying in part 223 Motion for Clarification and Alteration or Amendment of Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona on 6/18/2018. (fad, )
March 21, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 219 Order on Post Trial Motions. The Court ORDERS as follows: (1) Dirt Doktor's motion for prejudgment interest is GRANTED IN PART, and PWB is ordered to pay Dirt Doktor $99,343.98 with 6 percent interest per annum running from December 12, 20 13, and $56,478.63 with 6 percent interest per annum running from January 4, 2014. (2) PWB's motion for prejudgment interest is denied. (3) Neither party is the prevailing party in the litigation as a whole, and on that basis neither party is awarded attorney fees and court costs. The motions of Dirt Doktor and PWB for attorney fees as the prevailing party are DENIED. (4) PWB's motion for indemnification is DENIED. (5) Dirt Doktor's motion for reconsideration of the continge nt (declaratory) judgment is DENIED. (6) Dirt Doktor's motions for a new trial on demolition and replacement cost claim (slab redo) and the MWD claim are DENIED. (7) Dirt Doktor's motion to exonerate FirstNet Insurance Company is GRANTED. FirstNet is dismissed from these actions. (related document(s): 195 Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motions; 203 Defendant's Post-Trial Motions). Signed by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona on 3/21/2018. (fad, )
October 17, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 126 Order granting in part and denying in part 29 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff Camacho Family Partnership, d/b/a Dirt Doktor, on the claim for retention withheld by PWB at a time when the Government was not withholding retention, for the period from December 2012 through February 2013, in the amount of $42,855.02. 2. Summary judgment is DENIED on Dirt Doktor's claim for wrongfully withheld installment payments in the amount of $627,452.31. 3. Certification of the judgment under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona on 10/17/2016. (fad, )
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 Guam District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Camacho Family Partnership v. Patricia I. Romero, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Camacho Family Partnership
Represented By: Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr.
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: Patricia I. Romero, Inc.
Represented By: David W. Dooley
Represented By: John K. Landay
Represented By: Jacob M. Slania
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?