Zelpro Assembly Solutions, LLC et al v. Stingl Products, LLC et al
Defendant:
David Stingl, Stingl Products, LLC and Tony Sirianni
Plaintiff:
Zelpro Assembly Solutions, LLC and Calvin Rassmussen
Case Number:
3:2011cv00519
Filed:
April 27, 2011
Court:
Oregon District Court
Office:
Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge:
Janice M. Stewart
Nature of Suit:
Fraud or Truth-In-Lending
Cause of Action:
28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By:
Both
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| February 20, 2014 | 167 |
OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated, Defendants Motion for Attorney Fees 157 is DENIED. Signed on 2/20/14 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
|
| December 18, 2012 | 87 |
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is therefore GRANTED for the reasons outlined in Judge Stewarts F&R. Signed on 12/18/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
|
| August 31, 2011 | 30 |
OPINION & ORDER: On August 5, 2011, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) # 25 in the above-captioned case recommending that the motion to intervene filed by NAC Group, Inc. # 15 be granted. No objections were filed. Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewarts recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R # 25 as my own opinion. Signed on August 31st, 2011 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (eo)
|
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 Oregon 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.