Dawn Wells v. Hair Solutions By M E Inc et al
| Dawn Wells |
| Does and Hair Solutions By M E Inc |
| 2:2012cv00996 |
| February 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L. Abrams |
| John A Kronstadt |
| Contract: Other |
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
129
JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt, in favor of Dawn Wells against Hair Solutions By M E Inc. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: Plaintiff DAWN WELLS (Plaintiff) shall have judgment against Defendant HAIR SOLUTIONS BY M.E., INC, a New York corporation (Defendant) as follows: Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant: 1. The principal sum of $12,000.00; plus; 2. Pre-judgment interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) from June 3, 2013 to January 22, 2014 in the amount of � 36;766.03; plus; 3. Interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) from January 23, 2014 until the Judgment is paid in full at the daily rate of Three dollars and 28.77 cents ($3.2877); plus; 4. Attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in connectio n with enforcing this Judgment, which attorneys fees amount to One Thousand Six Hundred dollars ($1,600.00). As of January 22, 2014, Plaintiff shall therefore have Judgment against Defendant in the total amount of Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Six dollars and Three cents ($14,366.03). (shb)
|
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.
