Armstrong et al v. Hadlegal Services, LLC et al
| Primetime Vacation Specials, LLC and Adam Armstrong |
| Mark Salzman and Hadlegal Services, LLC |
| 5:2019cv00038 |
| May 3, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| Michael F Urbanski |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Adam Armstrong (Williams, Christine) |
| Filing 3 Negative Corporate Disclosure Statement by Primetime Vacation Specials, LLC (Williams, Christine) |
| Filing 2 Notice of Filing Requirement to Primetime Vacation Specials, LLC - Pursuant to Standing Order dated May 15, 2000, and the adoption of Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, effective December 1, 2002, nongovernmental corporate parties are directed to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement with their first appearance, pleading, motion or response. #Click here to access the Corporate Disclosure Statement Form. This form should be electronically filed in this matter as ordered. (kld) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Hadlegal Services, LLC, Mark Salzman (Filing & Administrative fee $ 400,receipt number 0423-3135518.), filed by Primetime Vacation Specials, LLC, Adam Armstrong. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(kld) |
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 Western 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.
