Wachovia Bank, National Association v. Motes Construction & Development, Inc. et al
Plaintiff:
Wachovia Bank, National Association
Defendant:
Motes Construction & Development, Inc. and Edmon Motes
Case Number:
1:2009cv00355
Filed:
June 18, 2009
Court:
Alabama Southern District Court
Office:
Mobile Office
County:
Baldwin
Referring Judge:
William E. Cassady
Presiding Judge:
Kristi K. DuBose
Nature of Suit:
None
Cause of Action:
28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Jury Demanded By:
None
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| February 24, 2010 | 17 |
Order re: 16 Notice of Filing Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion for Default Judgment requesting attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part. In additi on to those amounts set out in this Courts order of December 14, 2009 (Doc. 15), the defendants are jointly and severally liable to Wachovia for $10,789.79, which equals $4,120.50 worth of attorneys fees, $350 worth of legal expenses, and $6,319.29 worth of costs of collection. A Judgment consistent with the terms of this order follows. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 2/24/2010. (cmj)
|
| December 15, 2009 | 15 |
DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Wachovia Bank, National Association against Motes Construction & Development, Inc., Edmon Motes. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 12/14/09. (cmj)
|
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 Alabama Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
