CBR Systems Incorporated v. Tompkins

Plaintiff: CBR Systems Incorporated
Defendant: Mary Tompkins
Case Number: 2:2011cv02339
Filed: November 28, 2011
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28:1441
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
January 30, 2012 15 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 11 Motion for TRO; granting in part 12 Motion to Expedite. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/30/2012.(NVO)

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: CBR Systems Incorporated v. Tompkins
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mary Tompkins
Represented By: Christie Lynn Kriegsfeld
Represented By: Michelle Ray Matheson
Represented By: Mark Ogden
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: CBR Systems Incorporated
Represented By: Laura Lawless Robertson
Represented By: Michael Cajer Mason
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?