Kenton v. Foster, et al
3:2004cv02005 |
September 24, 2004 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Prescott Division Office |
Unassigned - CIV |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 75 ORDER that the parties' proposed form of judgment 71 is construed as a stipulated judgment. That the plaintiff's Application for Attorneys' Fees 72 is deemed to be withdrawn. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 12/17/08.(DMT, ) |
Filing 70 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. That defendant Linda Foster shall specifically perform the real estate sales contract she entered into with plaintiff Scott Kenton on July 20, 2004, as that contract is set forth in the Escrow Instructions (T rial Exhibit That plaintiff Scott Kenton shall submit a proposed form of judgment no later than November 24, 2008. If counsel cannot reach an agreement regarding the proposed judgment after reasonable and sincere efforts to do so, defendant Linda Foster shall file her objection to the plaintiffs proposed judgment no later than December 5, 2008. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 10/22/08. (DMT, ) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Kenton v. Foster, et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.