Brake Parts, Inc., v. Lewis
| Brake Parts, Inc., |
| David Lewis |
| 5:2009cv00132 |
| April 15, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Lexington Office |
| Clark |
| Karl S. Forester |
| James B Todd |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
| 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
193
OPINION & ORDER: (1) Brake Parts' 189 Motion for Leave to File to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED, Clerk is DIRECTED to FILE the tendered Second Amended Complaint; (2) Satisfied's 190 Motion for Protective Order staying depos ition discovery is DENIED; (3) Satisfied shall produce any corporate witnesses, including Robert Kahan & Stewart Kahan, for deposition w/in 14 days of entry of this Opinion & Order. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 05/10/2011. (RJD)cc: COR Modified to add text on 5/10/2011 (RJD).
|
|
Filing
163
OPINION & ORDER: (1) BPI's 162 Motion to file sur-reply is GRANTED & tendered sur-reply is DEEMED FILED; (2) GPC's 153 Motion to Intervene is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 01/11/2011. (RJD)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
160
OPINION & ORDER: (1) BPI & Affinia's 108 Motion to Dismiss Satisfied's counterclaims GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART; (2) Satisfied's claims for intentional interference w/contractual relations & intentional interference w/prospecti ve business relations are DISMISSED; (3) Satisfied's claim for defamation REMAINS PENDING against BPI & Affinia. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 01/06/2011. (RJD)cc: COR,David Lewis(pro se),Jeffrey P. Swatzell w/ copy of Mandatory ECF General Order & ECF registration form
|
|
Filing
80
OPINION & ORDER: (1) dfts' 71 Motion to Stay is DENIED; (2) dfts' 71 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART as follows: (a) dfts' motion to dismiss Count I of BPI's Complaint against Satisfied & Kahan is GRANTED , & BPI's RICO claim is DISMISSED; (b) dfts' motion to dismiss Count II of BPI's Complaint against Satisfied & Kahan is GRANTED, & BPI's claims based on IL law are DISMISSED; (c) w/in 15 days of entry of this Opinion & Order BPI m ay file amended complaint asserting a claim for actual & threatened misappropriation of trade secrets under KUTSA; (d) dfts' motion to dismiss Count III of BPI's Complaint against Satisfied & Kahan is DENIED, & BPI's claim for tortious interference w/contract REMAINS PENDING against Satisfied & Kahan. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 08/31/2010. (RJD)cc: COR
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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
| Search for this case: Brake Parts, Inc., v. Lewis | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Brake Parts, Inc., | |
| Represented By: | Barry D. Hunter |
| 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: David Lewis | |
| 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.
