Macfarlanes LLP v. Clark

Macfarlanes LLP v. Clark

Plaintiff:	Macfarlanes LLP
Defendant:	Charles Lange Clark
Case Number:	2:2013cv01519
Filed:	August 16, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Office:	Southern Office
County:	XX Outside US
Presiding Judge:	Madeline H Haikala
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Enforcement of Judgment
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
July 29, 2016	Filing 75 MEMORANDUM OPINION - Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Macfarlaness renewed motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 35). The Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE Mr. Clarks cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 69). The Court DENIES M acfarlaness motion to strike Mr. Clarks sur-reply as moot. (Doc. 74). The Court will enter judgment against Mr. Clark by separate order. Macfarlanes shall file a brief and evidentiary material in support of its demand for attorneys fees, expenses, and costs on or before August 5, 2016. Mr. Clark shall file a response on or before August 10, 2016. Macfarlanes may file a reply on or before August 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 7/28/2016. (KEK)
December 24, 2014	Filing 47 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court denies Mr. Clarks motions todismiss. On or before January 9, 2015, the parties shall select a mediator. The parties shall mediate their dispute on or before January 30, 2015. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/24/2014. (KEK)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 29, 2016

Filing 75 MEMORANDUM OPINION - Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Macfarlaness renewed motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 35). The Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE Mr. Clarks cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 69). The Court DENIES M acfarlaness motion to strike Mr. Clarks sur-reply as moot. (Doc. 74). The Court will enter judgment against Mr. Clark by separate order. Macfarlanes shall file a brief and evidentiary material in support of its demand for attorneys fees, expenses, and costs on or before August 5, 2016. Mr. Clark shall file a response on or before August 10, 2016. Macfarlanes may file a reply on or before August 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 7/28/2016. (KEK)

December 24, 2014

Filing 47 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court denies Mr. Clarks motions todismiss. On or before January 9, 2015, the parties shall select a mediator. The parties shall mediate their dispute on or before January 30, 2015. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 12/24/2014. (KEK)

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

Search for this case: Macfarlanes LLP v. Clark
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Macfarlanes LLP
Represented By:	Brent G Grainger
Represented By:	John W Scott
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: Charles Lange Clark
Represented By:	Lange Clark
Represented By:	Bryant A Whitmire, 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	[ 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?