Haroldson et al v. New Energy Ventures, Inc. et al
| Vita Nova Energy LLC and Douglas Haroldson |
| DOES 1-10, New Energy Ventures, Inc., Caden Energix Rives Road LLC, Caden Energix Pamplin LLC, Caden Energix Hickory LLC, Caden Energix LLC, Caden Energix Spout Spring LLC and New Energy Ventures, Inc. a Delaware corporation doing business as Caden Energy |
| 3:2019cv01674 |
| September 3, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Michael S Berg |
| William Q Hayes |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 dj |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 4, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (jmo) (jao). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Caden Energix LLC, Caden Energix Hickory LLC, Caden Energix Pamplin LLC, Caden Energix Rives Road LLC, Caden Energix Spout Spring LLC, DOES 1-10, New Energy Ventures, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974-12897161.), filed by Douglas Haroldson, Vita Nova Energy LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil cover sheet, #2 Exhibit A - Consulting Agreement)The new case number is 3:19-cv-01674-WQH-MSB. Judge William Q. Hayes and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case. (Lazarski, Bryan)(jmo) (jao). |
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 Southern 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.
