Val-Pro, Inc. v. Echo Foods, Inc. et al
| Val-Pro, Inc. |
| Duraid Daoud, Echo Foods, Inc., Jalal Garmo, Najah Kajy, Mukhles Karmo and Neil Patros Kayl |
| 2:2011cv04046 |
| May 11, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Carla Woehrle |
| Otis D Wright |
| Agriculture Acts |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
59
RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT by Clerk of Court 56 : RENEW AL OF JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED of the Judgment entered on December 28, 2011 30 in favor of Plaintiff VAL-PRO d/b/a VALLEY FRUIT & PRODUCE CO., and against ECHO FOODS, INC., a corporation d/b/a S AVE-A-LOT ECHO PARK; ECHO FOODS, INC., a corporation d/b/a SA VE-A-LOT SAN MARCOS; JALAL GARMO, an individual; NAJAR KAJY, an individual; MUKHLES KARMO, an individual; and DURAID DAOUD, an individual, jointly and severally, in the following amounts: a. Total judgment $64,926.94 ( Principal $43,677.50;Attorneys Fees $4,035.65; Costs $0.00; Pre-Judgment Interest $17,213.79); b. Costs after judgment -0-; c. Subtotal $64,926.94; d. Interest after judgment at 18.0% ; per annum (from entry of judgment to 12-10-2021): $78,296.41 ; e. Fee for filing renewal application -0-; f. TOTAL RENEWED JUDGMENT: $143,223.35. Plaintiff shall continue to recover post-judgment interest at 18% per annum on the unpaid balance until fully paid. (lc)
|
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 California Central 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
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.
