Loblolly, Inc. v. Mack et al

Defendant: Kristoffer B. Mack and Paul S. Rapello
Plaintiff: Loblolly, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2012cv01126
Filed: May 8, 2012
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Hennepin
Presiding Judge: David S. Doty
Referring Judge: Jeffrey J. Keyes
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities/Exchanges
Cause of Action: 15:78
Jury Demanded By: None

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Loblolly, Inc. v. Mack et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kristoffer B. Mack
Represented By: Annamarie A Daley
Represented By: Stephanie M Seidl
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Paul S. Rapello
Represented By: Annamarie A Daley
Represented By: Stephanie M Seidl
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Loblolly, Inc.
Represented By: Johnathan R Maddox
Represented By: Edward S. Adams - NA
Represented By: Aaron R Hartman
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 [ 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.