Mohammad Ali Hedayati v. The Judge Law Firm
Plaintiff: Mohammad Ali Hedayati
Defendant: The Judge Law Firm
Case Number: 8:2014cv01483
Filed: September 15, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: David O. Carter
Presiding Judge: Arthur Nakazato
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 21, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 32 JUDGMENT 31 by Judge David O. Carter: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 68, Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff individually against Defendant in the sum of $1,001.00 plus reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated). (lwag)
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: Mohammad Ali Hedayati v. The Judge Law Firm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mohammad Ali Hedayati
Represented By: Reza Torkzadeh
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 ]
Defendant: The Judge Law Firm
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?