Team Gordon, Inc v. Fruit of the Loom, Inc
Case Number: 3:2006cv00201
Filed: May 3, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Office: Charlotte Office
Presiding Judge: Robert J. Conrad
Presiding Judge: David Keesler
Nature of Suit: Contract: Recovery/Enforcement
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 29, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 120 ORDER ruling on the parties' trial briefs and final issues for trial. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 1/29/10. (gpb)
February 19, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendant's 45 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Defendant's 76 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 2/19/2009. (klg)
February 8, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER granting 27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery [Modify Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan]., ( Discovery completed by 4/25/2008; Motions due by 6/2/2008.). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 2/8/2008. (apb)
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 North Carolina Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Team Gordon, Inc v. Fruit of the Loom, Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?