Sedghi v. PatchLink Corporation
Plaintiff: Vahid Sedghi
Defendant: PatchLink Corporation
Case Number: 1:2007cv01636
Filed: June 21, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Maryland
Office: Baltimore Office
County: Anne Arundel
Presiding Judge: J. Frederick Motz
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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
October 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 133 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 10/17/11. (mps, Deputy Clerk)
September 30, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 106 OPINION. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 9/30/10. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)
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 Maryland District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sedghi v. PatchLink Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Vahid Sedghi
Represented By: Morris Eli Fischer
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: PatchLink Corporation
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?