De Lamos v. Mastro et al

De Lamos v. Mastro et al

Plaintiff:	Peter De Lamos
Defendant:	Dennis M Mastro
Case Number:	2:2010cv01654
Filed:	August 5, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Phoenix Division Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Frederick J Martone
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
September 20, 2010	Filing 21 ORDER DISMISSING all claims against fictitious dfts John Doe 1-12 and Corporations X and Y. FURTHER ORDERED DENYING dft's motion to dismiss pla's fraud claims (doc. 6). FURTHER ORDERED STRIKING from pla's complaint paragraph 27, insofa r as it references criminal indictment and convictions; paragraph 29; the first sentence of paragraph 30 and the first clause of the second sentence of paragraph 30 ("During the course of Mastro's prison sentence,"); the first clause o f the first sentence of paragraph 31 ("In 1983 after both Peter de Lamos and Mastro were out of incarceration,"); and paragraph 50 (doc. 1). Having ruled on the remaining claims in dft's motion to dismiss, dft's request for oral a rgument and additional briefing is moot. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING dft' "Request for Oral Argument" and GRANTING dft's request for a "Ruling on Motion to Dismiss" (doc. 17). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 9/17/10.(KMG)
August 5, 2010	Filing 11 OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 8/5/2010. (mmh) [Transferred from njd on 8/5/2010.]

Date Filed

Document Text

September 20, 2010

Filing 21 ORDER DISMISSING all claims against fictitious dfts John Doe 1-12 and Corporations X and Y. FURTHER ORDERED DENYING dft's motion to dismiss pla's fraud claims (doc. 6). FURTHER ORDERED STRIKING from pla's complaint paragraph 27, insofa r as it references criminal indictment and convictions; paragraph 29; the first sentence of paragraph 30 and the first clause of the second sentence of paragraph 30 ("During the course of Mastro's prison sentence,"); the first clause o f the first sentence of paragraph 31 ("In 1983 after both Peter de Lamos and Mastro were out of incarceration,"); and paragraph 50 (doc. 1). Having ruled on the remaining claims in dft's motion to dismiss, dft's request for oral a rgument and additional briefing is moot. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING dft' "Request for Oral Argument" and GRANTING dft's request for a "Ruling on Motion to Dismiss" (doc. 17). Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 9/17/10.(KMG)

August 5, 2010

Filing 11 OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Joel A. Pisano on 8/5/2010. (mmh) [Transferred from njd on 8/5/2010.]

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: De Lamos v. Mastro et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Peter De Lamos
Represented By:	Tomas Espinosa
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: Dennis M Mastro
Represented By:	Jerry C Bonnett
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?