William Randolph Harloff v. Scott Frauenheim
Petitioner: William Randolph Harloff
Respondent: Scott Frauenheim
Case Number: 2:2015cv09281
Filed: December 1, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: R. Gary Klausner
Presiding Judge: Alka Sagar
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 27 JUDGMENT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge 26 ,IT IS ADJUDGED that the Petition 1 is denied and dismissed withprejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (afe)
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: William Randolph Harloff v. Scott Frauenheim
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Scott Frauenheim
Represented By: Blythe J Leszkay
Represented By: Steven Dean Matthews
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: William Randolph Harloff
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?