Thompson v. StreetSmarts Incorporated et al

Plaintiff: Craig Thompson
Defendant: Dave Batt and StreetSmarts Incorporated
Case Number: 2:2010cv01885
Filed: September 2, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Lawrence O Anderson
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
June 30, 2011 44 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: Plaintiff's Appication for Entry of Default Judgment, 16 and 35 , against Defendants StreetSmarts and Batt be GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motions for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs etc, 24 and 38 , be DENIED; and Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff Craig Thompson and against Defendants StreetSmarts and Batt, jointly and severally, in the amount of $195,319.41, plus Plai ntiff's taxable costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this Report and Recommendation is approved, the Clerk is kindly directed to enter Judgment consistent with this Order (see attached pdf for complete information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 6/30/11. (TLJ)
December 16, 2010 28 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Dave Batt and for Substituted Service Upon Defendant Dave Batt 26 is granted. Plaintiff shall have until and including 4/15/11 to complete service upon Defendant (see order for details). ORDER that Plaintiff's defaul damages hearing set for 12/15/10 is hereby vacated without prejudice until after service of process is complete on Defendant Dave Batt or further order of the Court. ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment 16 , Request and Affidavit for Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant StreetSmarts, Inc. 18 ; and Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs 24 , are denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 12/16/10.(TLJ)
October 22, 2010 15 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Request for Hearing, Memorandum of Points and Authorities etc., Request and Affidavit for Entry of Default Judgment etc. and Proposed Order Granting Default Judgment, (Docs. 11-14), are hereby STRICKEN without prejudice re striking 11 Motion for Default Judgment; striking 13 Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 10/22/10.(TLJ)

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: Thompson v. StreetSmarts Incorporated et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dave Batt
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: StreetSmarts Incorporated
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: Craig Thompson
Represented By: Cameron Matthew Hall
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?