Douglass v. Martin

Plaintiff: Melvin Leroy Douglass, Jr.
Defendant: Albert J Martin
Case Number: 2:2012cv00604
Filed: March 22, 2012
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: David G Campbell
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
September 7, 2012 35 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that Plaintiff's 8 motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant's 12 motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant's 11 motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's 4 motions to amend, 31 for a temporary restraining order, and 32 for a cease and desist order are denied. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/7/12.(DMT)

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: Douglass v. Martin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Melvin Leroy Douglass, Jr.
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: Albert J Martin
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?