Harris v. Tile Concepts of Virginia, Inc. et al

Defendant: David L. Griffin, Sr. and Tile Concepts of Virginia, Inc.
Plaintiff: Seth D. Harris
Case Number: 2:2013cv00112
Filed: March 1, 2013
Court: Virginia Eastern District Court
Office: Norfolk Office
County: Chesapeake City
Presiding Judge: Robert G. Doumar
Referring Judge: Lawrence R. Leonard
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act
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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harris v. Tile Concepts of Virginia, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: David L. Griffin, Sr.
Represented By: Melissa Jackson Howell
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: Tile Concepts of Virginia, Inc.
Represented By: Melissa Jackson Howell
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: Seth D. Harris
Represented By: Karen M. Barefield
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.