Svete v. Wunderlich et al
| David W Svete |
| Rani Whitfield and Howard F Wunderlich |
| 3:2009cv00357 |
| October 6, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Sharon L Ovington |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Both |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| Both |
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
198
DECISION AND ENTRY: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on January 29, 2010 (Doc. # 196 ) is ADOPTED in full; 2. Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. # 192 ) is STRICKEN for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); and 3. The parties are DIRECTED to comply with the terms of this Court's January 29, 2010 Entry and Order (Doc. # 197 ) regarding the assessment of attorneys' fees and costs. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 2/18/10. (bac1) Modified on 2/18/2010 (bac1).
|
|
Filing
196
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. # 192 ) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); and (2) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 22 ) be DISMISSED with prejudice and P laintiff be ORDERED to pay Defendants Whitfield's and Wunderlich's reasonable expenses, in accordance with the recommendations contained in this Court's January 11, 2010 Report and Recommendations. OBJECTIONS TO R&R DUE BY 2/16/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 1/28/10. (bac1)
|
|
Filing
180
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff David W. Svete's Motion 136 to Change Venue is DENIED. Defendant, Howard F. Wunderlich's motion 109 to Change Venue for Improper Venue is GRANTED. This action is hereby ORDERED TRANSFERRED to the Western Division of this Court, at Dayton. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 09/15/2009. (sr)
|
|
Filing
174
ORDER denying as moot 172 Plaintiff's Motion to reconsider the order adopting, without objection, the Report and Recommendation dated 06/11/09. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/06/09. (dh)
|
|
Filing
173
OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's objection to 168 the Order of the Magistrate Judge, but grants Plaintiff until 8/21/09 to provide the supplemental responses directed by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has requested an extension of time 171 to respond to discovery requests, the Court grants Plaintiff until 8/21/09 to respond. The Court denies without prejudice 166 and 167 Defendants' motions for sanctions and dismissal for failure to make timely response to defendants' discovery requests. Plaintiff's motion to bifurcate 170 is denied. Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date of the proceedings. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/03/09. (dh)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER adopting and affirming the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Defendant Whitfield's motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's discovery 133 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 07/07/09. (dh)
|
|
Filing
160
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 133 MOTION to Dismiss. Objections to R&R due by 6/29/2009. ORDER denying 115 Motion to Compel; denying 128 Motion to Compel; granting 145 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 151 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 6/11/09. (jcw)
|
|
Filing
114
ORDER denying 99 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Opinion and Order of 09/30/08. Signed by Edmund A Sargus on 02/06/09. (dh)
|
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 Southern 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.
