Watt v. Roth
Case Number: 4:2005cv05234
Filed: December 19, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
Presiding Judge: Saundra Brown Armstrong
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. ยง 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 12, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, DENYING AS MOOT 41 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/11/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008) Modified on 12/15/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
October 22, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 39 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 38 Motion to Set Aside Judgment (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2008)
September 24, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 34 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 25 Motion to Reopen Case; denying 25 Motion to Set Aside (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2008)
September 5, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER re 34 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment filed by Tanis Jocelyn Watt, 25 MOTION to Reopen Case MOTION to Set Aside 12 Terminated Case,, Order, filed by Tanis Jocelyn Watt, 21 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Tanis Jocelyn Watt. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/4/08. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2008)
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Watt v. Roth
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.

Why Is My Information Online?