Jackson et al v. Butler et al
| W. Alvin Jackson, Rita F. Jackson, Angela O'Mara, Brian Davis, Kelli Davis, David Patterson, Tanja Dehoff, Jamie Harnett, Jim Schaefer, Laura Schaefer, Carissa Roman, Daniel Roman, Janet Rollins and Collette Givens |
| Kathy Butler, Mike Butler, Daniel Fragen and PRS Franchise Systems, LLC |
| 2:2009cv10779 |
| March 2, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Detroit Office |
| Oakland |
| Borman |
| Scheer |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
32
ORDER granting in part 19 Motion for Costs filed by Kathy Butler, Daniel Fragen, Mike Butler, PRS Franchise Systems, LLC, and adopting 31 Report and Recommendation Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)
|
|
Filing
31
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 19 MOTION for Costs filed by Kathy Butler, Daniel Fragen, Mike Butler, PRS Franchise Systems, LLC Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan)
|
|
Filing
25
OPINION and ORDER denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)
|
|
Filing
21
OPINION and ORDER denying 17 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)
|
|
Filing
15
OPINION and ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Paul D Borman. (DGoo)
|
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 Michigan Eastern 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.
