Western Surety Company v. Mitex Roofing, Inc. et al
| Western Surety Company |
| Mitex Roofing, Inc., John Brosnahan, Kimberley Brosnahan and Rudolph Ray Martinez |
| 7:2010cv00153 |
| August 4, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Southern Division Office |
| xxU.S. Outside District |
| Louise Wood Flanagan |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
33
ORDER granting 26 Motion for Default Judgment - A default judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Martinez, jointly and severally along with Defendant Mitex Roofing, Inc., on Plaintiff's claims in the amount of $454,297.11, plus interest from the date of breach at the legal rate until paid in full, pursuant to the Indemnity Agreement. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 8/7/2012. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER granting 30 Motion for Entry of Default as to Defendant Rudolph Ray Martinez - Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 07/11/2012. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER denying 25 Motion for Entry of Default - Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 05/31/2012. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
22
DEFAULT JUDGMENT as to Mitex Roofing, Inc. - Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 06/17/2011. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER granting 11 Motion for Entry of Default as to Defendants John Vincent Brosnahan, Kimberly Brosnahan and Mitex Roofing, Inc. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 01/06/2011. Copies served. (Baker, C.).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
