JetPay Merchant Services LLC v. Tepoorten
Plaintiff: JetPay Merchant Services LLC
Defendant: David Tepoorten
Case Number: 3:2008cv01380
Filed: August 8, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office: Contract: Other Office
County: Anderson
Presiding Judge: Sam A Lindsay
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 23, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 54 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, denying 33 Motion for Leave to Supplement Response. (see order) (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/23/2009) (mfw)
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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: JetPay Merchant Services LLC v. Tepoorten
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: JetPay Merchant Services LLC
Represented By: Megan Melissa Honey
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: David Tepoorten
Represented By: Maurice Owens, Jr
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.


Why Is My Information Online?