Tami E. Henry, Plaintiff,
v.
Universal Technical Institute et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
April 5, 2012.
April 5, 2012.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Tami E Henry, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Universal Technical Institute, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Kimberly McWaters, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Adrian Cordova, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Mike Romano, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Maria Walters, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Heather Gonzales, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Bernie Candeleria, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Markia Baker, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Karen Mourad, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Kathy Bochenski, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
Tom Riggs, as named on amended complaint, Defendant, represented by John F Lomax, Jr., Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ & Michelle Leigh Keogh, Snell & Wilmer LLP - Phoenix, AZ.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
The court has before it plaintiff's motion for default judgment (doc. 88). Plaintiff moved for default judgment on April 4, 2012 pursuant to Rule 55(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. No default has been entered by the Clerk under Rule 55(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were served on March 20, 2012. Defendants must answer a complaint within twenty-one days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
