Wedi Corp. v. Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc.
| Wedi Corp |
| Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc. |
| 2:2018cv00636 |
| April 30, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| XX US, Outside District |
| Thomas S. Zilly |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 |
| None |
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
85
MINUTE ORDER denying defendant Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc.'s 78 Motion for Attorney Fees. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER granting the deferred portion of Defendant Seattle Glass's 58 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing wedi's remaining claim of fraud with prejudice; striking as moot the parties' 75 Stipulated Motion for relief from deadlines. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (PM)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER granting in part and deferring in part defendant Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc.'s 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment; RENOTING defendant's 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Noting Date 11/30/2018, by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)
|
|
Filing
71
MINUTE ORDER granting parties' stipulated motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 62 and 66 ). Exhibits 1-3, 7, and 8 to the Declaration of Daniel J. Becka, docket no. 65 , and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Brian F. McMahon, docket nos. 69 and 70 , shall remain under seal. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (TH)
|
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 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.
