M-Audits, LLC v. Healthsmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District M-Audits, LLC v. Healthsmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.

M-Audits, LLC v. Healthsmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff:	M-Audits, LLC
Defendant:	Healthsmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.
Case Number:	1:2015cv01433
Filed:	July 21, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Cleveland Office
County:	Lorain
Presiding Judge:	Sara Lioi
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 31, 2017	Filing 82 Memorandum Opinion and Order: HealthSmart's motion for reconsideration is denied. (Related Doc. No. 66 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 3/31/2017. (P,J)
September 29, 2016	Filing 65 Memorandum Opinion and Order: After a de novo review of the issues raised by HealthSmart's objections, the R&R (Doc. No. 50 ) is accepted and adopted, except with respect to the recommendation regarding an accounting, which is clarified and modified as described herein. No later than October 21, 2016, the parties shall submit a joint proposal outlining a procedure and criteria by which to calculate M-Audits' losses caused by HealthSmart's violation of the agreed order. Acc ordingly, M-Audits' first motion to show cause and for contempt (Doc. No. 24 ) is granted in part and denied in part as detailed in the R&R and as set forth herein. Additionally, HealthSmart's second motion to modify the agreed order (Doc. No. 52 ) is denied. Judge Sara Lioi on 9/29/2016. (P,J)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 31, 2017

Filing 82 Memorandum Opinion and Order: HealthSmart's motion for reconsideration is denied. (Related Doc. No. 66 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 3/31/2017. (P,J)

September 29, 2016

Filing 65 Memorandum Opinion and Order: After a de novo review of the issues raised by HealthSmart's objections, the R&R (Doc. No. 50 ) is accepted and adopted, except with respect to the recommendation regarding an accounting, which is clarified and modified as described herein. No later than October 21, 2016, the parties shall submit a joint proposal outlining a procedure and criteria by which to calculate M-Audits' losses caused by HealthSmart's violation of the agreed order. Acc ordingly, M-Audits' first motion to show cause and for contempt (Doc. No. 24 ) is granted in part and denied in part as detailed in the R&R and as set forth herein. Additionally, HealthSmart's second motion to modify the agreed order (Doc. No. 52 ) is denied. Judge Sara Lioi on 9/29/2016. (P,J)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: M-Audits, LLC v. Healthsmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: M-Audits, LLC
Represented By:	David S. Nichol
Represented By:	Kurt R. Weitendorf
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: Healthsmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.
Represented By:	Brant T. Miller
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.

Why Is My Information Online?