Everest Wealth Management, Inc. v. Doe et al

Defendant: John Doe and Doe, Inc.
Plaintiff: Everest Wealth Management, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2013cv01714
Filed: June 13, 2013
Court: Maryland District Court
Office: Baltimore Office
County: Baltimore County
Presiding Judge: J. Frederick Motz
Nature of Suit: Assault Libel & Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Jury Demanded By: None

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: Everest Wealth Management, Inc. v. Doe et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Doe
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: Doe, Inc.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Everest Wealth Management, Inc.
Represented By: Christopher J Lyon(Designation Retained)
Represented By: Daniel P Doty(Designation Retained)
Represented By: James B Astrachan(Designation Retained)
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.