Buttner v. RD Palmer Enterprises, Inc. et al
| Brian R. Buttner |
| RD Palmer Enterprises, Inc., Richard Palmer, Rich and Gardner Construction Company Inc., Dunn & Sgromo Engineers, PLLC and Robert Charles Abbott, Jr. |
| 5:2013cv00342 |
| March 26, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Syracuse Office |
| Tompkins |
| Andrew T. Baxter |
| Lawrence E. Kahn |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 101 Copyright Infringement |
| Defendant |
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
166
DECISION and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Stay Motion (Dkt. No. 147) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Palmer Defendants Reconsideration Motion (Dkt. No. 152) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that R&Gs Fees Motion (Dkt. No. 148) is DENI ED with leave to refile after the resolution of R&Gs outstanding counterclaims; and it is further ORDERED, that the parties are directed to submit a request for conference before the Court within ten (10) days after the Court of Appeals issues a mandate or dismisses the appeal in this action. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on July 01, 2016. (sas)
|
|
Filing
145
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Motion (Dkt. No. 77) for partial summary judgment against Defendants RD Palmer Enterprises, Inc., Richard Palmer, and Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc. is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, t hat Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc.s Cross-Motion (Dkt. No. 83) for partial summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc.s Motion (Dkt. No. 89) for partial sum mary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs copyright infringement claims against Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc. are DISMISSED and Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc. is DISMISSED from this action; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Richard Palmer and RD Palmer Enterprises, Inc.s Cross-Motion (Dkt. No. 84) for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs copyright infringement claims against Defendants Richard Palmer and RD Palmer Enterprises, Inc. are DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc.s Motion (Dkt. No . 89) for summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc.s Second Motion (Dkt. No. 133) for summary judgment is DENIED as moot; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Robert Charle s Abbott, Jr.s Motion (Dkt. No. 91) for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as moot; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Robert Charles Abbott, Jr.s Motion (Dkt. No. 93) for summary judgment is DENIED as moot; and it is furtherORDERED, that Pla intiffs Letter Motion (Dkt. No. 98) to withdraw claims against Defendant Robert Charles Abbott, Jr. is DENIED as moot; and it is further ORDERED, that all claims against Defendant Robert Charles Abbott, Jr. are DISMISSED with prejudice and Defendant Robert Charles Abbott, Jr. is DISMISSED from this action; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Rich and Gardner Construction Company, Inc.s Motion (Dkt. No. 124) to preclude Plaintiffs damages expert is DENIED as moot; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendant Dunn & Sgromo Engineers, PLLC Motion (Dkt. No. 131) for summary judgment is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs copyright infringement claims against Defendant Dunn & Sgromo Engineers, PLLCs are DISMISSED and Defendant Dunn & Sgromo Engineers, PLLC is DISMISSED from this action; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Letter Motion (Dkt. No. 143) to strike is DENIED as moot; and it is further ORDERED, that if Plaintiff wishes to maintain this action in the Nort hern District, he must file within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order a memorandum of law asserting the basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining breach of contract claim aga inst Defendants Richard Palmer and RD Palmer Enterprises, Inc. Defendants may file a response within ten (10) days of Plaintiffs memorandum. If Plaintiff fails or elects not to file a memorandum of law on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on March 31, 2015. (sas)
|
|
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDERED, that Defendants Rich & Gardner, Palmer, and Dunn & Sgromos Motion (Dkt. No. 44) for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs unjust enrichment and unfair competition claims are DISMISSED as against Defendants Rich & Gardner, Palmer, and Dunn & Sgromo; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs copyright infringement and breach-of-contract claims are DISMISSED as against Defendants Rich & Gardner, Palmer, and Dunn & Sgromo i nsofar as they seek punitive damages; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs copyright infringement claim is DISMISSED as against Defendants Rich & Gardner, Palmer, and Dunn & Sgromo insofar as it seeks attorneys fees and statutory damages. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on November 27, 2013. (sas)
|
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 New York Northern 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.
