McDonald et al v. McPhun et al
Case Number: 1:2018cv00697
Filed: January 10, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office: Alexandria Office
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 270 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 7/15/2021. (kgall) (C/S to parties)
January 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 202 ORDER, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Carla DeSilva McPhun and Cadem Capital Group's objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is OVERRULED, the 196 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL, Pltf's 150 Motion for Sanctions and Entry of Default Judgment Against Defts Carla McPhun and Cadem Capital Group is GRANTED IN PART; the Clerk enter default against the McPhun Defts; pltfs promptly file a supplemental motion for def ault judgment specifically indicating how they are entitled to relief under each count of their complaint as well as the amount of their damages. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 01/10/19. (Copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order mailed to the McPhun Defts)(pmil, )
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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: McDonald et al v. McPhun et al
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?