Government Employees Insurance Company et al v. KJ Chiropractic Center LLC et al
| Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Geico Casualty Company and Geico Indemnity Company |
| KJ Chiropractic Center LLC, Wellness Pain & Rehab, Inc., Sadat Smith, Arthur Vito, Esdras Pierre Louis, Jean Cassamajor, Robert Cohen, Orlene Joseph, Edner Desir, Elaine Felix, Vladimir Jean Pierre, Robert Thelusma, Shenika Richardson, Shayla Gaines, Chanel Akins and Queena McRae |
| 6:2012cv01138 |
| July 23, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Orlando Office |
| Orange |
| David A. Baker |
| Charlene Edwards Honeywell |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Both |
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
665
ORDER adopting 664 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 663 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs mandated by 18 USC 1964(c) filed by Geico Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico Casualty Company. The Motion in Support of Reasonable Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Expenses Relative to GEICO's Granted Motion for Summary Judgment and Default Judgment (Doc. 663) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiffs a tot al of $1,571,692.43 in attorney fees and $15,634.81 in costs joint and severally against Defendants Jean Dorestant, Belle Management, LLC, Shenika Richardson, Vladimir Jean Pierre, Chanel Atkins, Robert Cohen, Jean Cassamajor, Elaine Felix, Esdras Pierre Louis, Edner Desir, and Shayla Gaines. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 4/20/2018. (MMW)
|
|
Filing
660
ORDER adopting 657 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 632 Motion for Default Judgment and 656 Joint MOTION for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) against Defendant, Robert Thelusma, in the amount of $6,708,553.73 filed by Geic o Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Government. 632 Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED in part. 656 Joint Motion for Entry of Separate and Final Judgment is GRANTED. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 1/8/2018. (MMW)
|
|
Filing
420
ORDER adopting 401 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 324 Motion for Default Judgment Against Robert Thelusma and re 393 Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment Against Robert Thelusma. The motions are GRANTED, to the extent they seek entry of a default against Robert Thelsuma, but DENIED, to the extent they seek entry of judgment against this defendant, at this time. The Clerk is directed to enter a DEFAULT against Defendant Thelusma. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 10/22/2014. (MMW)
|
|
Filing
308
ORDER adopting 299 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Sever Third Party Complaint 264 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike or in the Al ternative Sever KJ and Smith's Third Party Complaint 288 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' Third Party Complaints (Docs. 253, 276) are stricken, without prejudice. Defendants Jean Dorestant, Sadat Smith, and KJ Chiropra ctic Center, LLC, are directed to file a notice of constitutional question as specified in Rule 5.1 and to serve said notice and the paper drawing into question the constitutionality of sections 400.990 - 400.995, Florida Statutes, on the Florida Att orney General by June 18, 2014. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403, the Court hereby certifies to the Attorney General of the State of Florida that the constitutionality of specific provisions of sections 400.990 - 400.995, Florida Statutes, has been questioned. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 5/28/2014. (BGS)
|
|
Filing
260
ORDER adopting 228 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. KJ Chiropractic Center, LLC's Motion to Dismiss 204 is GRANTED as to Count XI, and DENIED in all other respects. Sadat Smith's Motion to Dismiss 205 is GRANTED a s to Count XI, and DENIED in all other respects. Orlene Joseph's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Final Amended Complaint 206 is GRANTED as to Count XI, and DENIED in all other respects. Arthur Vito and Wellness Pain & Rehab, Inc.'s M otion to Dismiss 207 is GRANTED as to Count XI, and DENIED in all other respects. Robert Thelusma's Motion to Dismiss 209 is GRANTED as to Count XI, and DENIED in all other respects. As GEICO has stated plausible claims for relief against Orlene Joseph, her Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions 208 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 3/6/2014. (BGS)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER adopting 175 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendant Sadat Smith's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 122 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant KJ Chiropratic Center, LLC's Motion to dism iss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 123 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants Arthur Vito and Wellness Pain & Rehab, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 124 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint 157 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Time to Amend Pleadings, Disclose Experts, Comply with Discovery and File Dispositive Motions 158 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Extend Time to Amend Pleadings, Disclose Experts, Comply with Discovery and File Dispositive Motions 159 is GRANTED in part as set forth in paragraph (11) below. Plaintiffs' Revised Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint 160 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Consideration of Motions to Dismiss Pending Filing of Amended Complaint 164 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Stay Consideration of Motions to Dismiss Pending Filing of Amended Complain t 165 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in paragraph (11) below. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Supplement Complaint 170 is GRANTED in part as follows: a. Plaintiffs are granted leave to take the deposition of Defendant Esdra s Pierre Louis within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order. b. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Final Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of the deposition of Defendant Louis. c. No additional discovery (aside from the deposition of Defendant Louis) shall be conducted until the Final Amended Complaint is filed. Once the Final Amended Complaint is filed, the parties shall promptly confer and submit a new Case Management Report within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS fr om the date of filing of the Final Amended Complaint. The Court will thereafter issue a new Case Management and Scheduling Order. To the extent the Final Amended Complaint purports to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiz ations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq., Plaintiffs shall file a RICO Case Statement which shall include the facts upon which Plaintiffs are relying to initiate any RICO claim they allege in the Final Amended Complaint as a res ult of the "reasonable inquiry" required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The RICO Case Statement shall be in the form specified by, and shall state in detail and with specificity the information described in, the Report and Recommendation in paragraph III and sub-pargraphs (1) through (19) thereof. e. Failure to comply with the instructions in this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 5/31/2013. (BGS)
|
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 Florida Middle 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.
