MidFirst Bank v. Mulava

Plaintiff: MidFirst Bank
Defendant: Zygmunt Mulava
Case Number: 2:2008cv01176
Filed: June 25, 2008
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Contract: Other Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Mary H Murguia
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
March 4, 2009 11 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion 10 for Default Judgment is granted. FURTHER ORDERED awarding Plaintiff the principal sum in the amount of $130,000 plus interest at 8.25% pursuant to the HELOC agreement from July 31, 2007. FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Mary H Murguia on 3/2/09.(KMG)

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MidFirst Bank v. Mulava
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MidFirst Bank
Represented By: Ryan Michael Schultz
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: Zygmunt Mulava
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.


Why Is My Information Online?