Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco Terr Distributing, Inc

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Washington Western District Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco Terr Distributing, Inc

Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco Terr Distributing, Inc

Petitioner:	Purus Plastics GmbH
Respondent:	Eco Terr Distributing, Inc
Case Number:	2:2018cv00277
Filed:	February 22, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office:	Seattle Office
County:	XX Outside US
Presiding Judge:	Mary Alice Theiler
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action:	09 U.S.C. § 1
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
July 16, 2018	Filing 23 ORDER re 22 Proposed Uncontested Judgment Confirming Arbitration. If the parties seek to amend the judgment, they must file an appropriate motion. In such a motion, which the parties may file jointly, they must state the legal basis for amendment and explain their reasons for seeking an amendment. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)
June 21, 2018	Filing 20 ORDER denying Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss and confirming the Foreign Arbitration Awards 1 . The court further GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Purus's request for post-award, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees (Dkt. # 16 ). Accordingly, the court AWARDS prejudgment interest on the arbitral award of 20,000.00 Euros, commencing on September 8, 2015, through the date of judgment. Such interest shall accrue at a rate equal to the federal post-judgment interest rate, see 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), applicable for the calendar week preceding the date of judgment. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 16, 2018

Filing 23 ORDER re 22 Proposed Uncontested Judgment Confirming Arbitration. If the parties seek to amend the judgment, they must file an appropriate motion. In such a motion, which the parties may file jointly, they must state the legal basis for amendment and explain their reasons for seeking an amendment. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

June 21, 2018

Filing 20 ORDER denying Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss and confirming the Foreign Arbitration Awards 1 . The court further GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Purus's request for post-award, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees (Dkt. # 16 ). Accordingly, the court AWARDS prejudgment interest on the arbitral award of 20,000.00 Euros, commencing on September 8, 2015, through the date of judgment. Such interest shall accrue at a rate equal to the federal post-judgment interest rate, see 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), applicable for the calendar week preceding the date of judgment. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

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: Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco Terr Distributing, Inc
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Purus Plastics GmbH
Represented By:	Shaina Rhodes Johnson
Represented By:	James Donald Nelson
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 ]
Respondent: Eco Terr Distributing, Inc
Represented By:	Dayna J. Christian
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?