Sopramco CV9 CFL, LLC v. Miranda Daleccio

Plaintiff: Sopramco CV9 CFL, LLC
Defendant: Isabel Maria Miranda Daleccio
Case Number: 3:2009cv01676
Filed: July 16, 2009
Court: Puerto Rico District Court
Office: San Juan Office
County: Bayamon
Presiding Judge: Jaime Pieras, Jr
Referring Judge:
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Default
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
January 25, 2010 10 Opinion or Order of the Court DEFAULT JUDGMENT for Plaintiff in the amount of $153,961.10 plus interest accruing at a daily rate of $22.85 since 12/17/2009. Motion terminated: Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Jaime Pieras, Jr. on 1/22/2010. (mld)

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 Puerto Rico District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sopramco CV9 CFL, LLC v. Miranda Daleccio
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sopramco CV9 CFL, LLC
Represented By: Carlos C. Alsina-Batista
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: Isabel Maria Miranda Daleccio
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.