Garland Dollar General LLC v. Reeves Devlopment LLC et al
| Garland Dollar General LLC |
| Reeves Devlopment LLC, Charles Reeves, Jr and Houma Texas Dollar Partners LLC |
| 3:2009cv00707 |
| April 17, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Sidney A Fitzwater |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
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
122
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 94 Motion to Dismiss filed by Randy Goodloe. Goodloe's June 9, 2010 motion to dismiss Garland Dollar's amended complaint is granted. Garland Dollar is granted 30 days from the date this memorandum opinion and order is filed to file a second amended complaint that states a negligence claim on which relief can be granted. (Ordered by Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 10/21/2010) (Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
|
|
Filing
81
Memorandum Opinion and Order. 67 MOTION to Dismiss In Response To Reeves Development, LLC's First Amended Third-Party Claim Against R-Delta Engineers, Inc. filed by R-Delta Engineers, Inc. is denied without prejudice as premature and 77 First MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by Garland Dollar General LLC is granted. (Ordered by Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 5/17/2010) (Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
|
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 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.
