NaturaLawn of America, Inc. v. Gro-Bro, Inc. et al

Plaintiff: NaturaLawn of America, Inc.
Defendant: Gro-Bro, Inc. and David Briggs
Case Number: 1:2011cv03166
Filed: November 7, 2011
Court: Maryland District Court
Office: Baltimore Office
County: Frederick
Presiding Judge: James K. Bredar
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 15:1114
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

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: NaturaLawn of America, Inc. v. Gro-Bro, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: NaturaLawn of America, Inc.
Represented By: Alison Levin Nadel
Represented By: John J Dabney
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Gro-Bro, Inc.
Represented By: William Stuart Heyman
Represented By: Stanley Todman
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: David Briggs
Represented By: William Stuart Heyman
Represented By: Stanley Todman
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.