Harris v. Mundel
Plaintiff: Carolynne R Harris
Defendant: David S Mundel
Case Number: 2:2017cv01107
Filed: July 21, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: Snohomish
Presiding Judge: Richard A Jones
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instrument
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
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
March 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER granting Defendant's 19 Motion for Attorney Fees signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)
July 26, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER granting Defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Harris v. Mundel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Carolynne R Harris
Represented By: Bradley R Duncan
Represented By: Joshua A Rataezyk
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 S Mundel
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?