Larkin v. Trinity Lighting, Inc.
Jonathan Larkin |
Trinity Lighting, Inc. |
3:2010cv00109 |
February 17, 2010 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
Jackson Office |
Hinds |
F. Keith Ball |
Tom S. Lee |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 108 ORDER denying 79 Motion to Compel Costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 20, 2011. (jsm) |
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 Mississippi 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
Search for this case: Larkin v. Trinity Lighting, Inc. | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Jonathan Larkin | |
Represented By: | Drew McLemore Martin |
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 ] |
Defendant: Trinity Lighting, Inc. | |
Represented By: | Brenda Currie Jones |
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.