Haddad v. Charles Riley and Associates, Incorporated et al
| Tony Haddad |
| Charles Riley and Associates, Incorporated, Blue Diamond Market of Warren, Inc., Brighton Market, Inc. and Charles Riley |
| Brighton Market, Inc. |
| Charles Riley and Associates, Incorporated |
| 2:2009cv12597 |
| July 2, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Detroit Office |
| Wayne |
| Hluchaniuk |
| Lawson |
| Other |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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
77
ORDER granting 73 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER adopting in part 56 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part motions for summary judgment 30 and 39 , overruling in part and sustaining in part 57 Objections, dismissing count III of the complaint as to Brighton Market, and continuing order of reference. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DPer)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER adopting 42 Report and Recommendation ; granting 24 Cross-motion for default judgment, and denying 27 Motion to set aside default. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DPer)
|
|
Filing
43
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 13 MOTION for Judgment against Blue Diamond Market of Warren filed by Tony Haddad. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk. (THal)
|
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.
