Bonsey v. Kates

Defendant: Mary Louise Kates
Plaintiff: David Bonsey
Case Number: 1:2013cv02708
Filed: April 24, 2013
Court: New York Southern District Court
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Robert W. Sweet
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 21, 2013 20 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION re: 7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Mary Louise Kates, 15 CROSS MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Amended Complaint filed by David Bonsey. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiff's leave to amend is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/17/2013) (lmb)

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bonsey v. Kates
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mary Louise Kates
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Bonsey
Represented By: Al J. Daniel, Jr.
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.