Coccoli, Sr. v. FREDAP, Inc.
| Vincent R. Coccoli, Sr. |
| FREDAP, Inc. and Alfred Daprato |
| 1:2013cv12757 |
| October 31, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Marianne B. Bowler |
| Torts to Land |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
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
135
Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler: ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT. The issues having been duly heard, a decision rendered by this court and a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that plaintiff Vincent R. Coccoli, Sr. take nothing from defendants Alfred Daprato, FREDAP, Inc. and FREDAP Realty Trust and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice. (Patton, Christine)
|
|
Filing
51
Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING (DOCKET ENTRY # 28) is ALLOWED as to the tax indebtedness claim and DENIED as to the breach of contract claim. T his action will proceed only with respect to the claim for breach of a joint venture agreement. MOTION FOR ALLOWANCE OF REAL ESTATE ATTACHMENT (DOCKET ENTRY # 18); MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE ATTACHMENT (DOCKET ENTRY # 21). The motions for a prejudgment attachment (Docket Entry ## 18 & 21 are DENIED(Feeney, Eileen)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
