Subpoena Upon NeJame Law, P.A.
Movant: Nejame Law, P.A.
Receiver: Patrick Cavanaugh
Case Number: 6:2016mc00008
Filed: February 1, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Office: Orlando Office
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Carlos E. Mendoza
Presiding Judge: Thomas B. Smith
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Motion to Quash

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 21, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER granting 3 Motion to transfer case; carrying 1 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 4/21/2016. (Smith, Thomas)
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 Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Subpoena Upon NeJame Law, P.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Movant: Nejame Law, P.A.
Represented By: Stephen J. Calvacca
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 ]
Receiver: Patrick Cavanaugh
Represented By: Andrew M. Brumby
Represented By: Michael David Crosbie
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?