Sunil Gupta, M.D., LLC v. Lauten

Sunil Gupta, M.D., LLC v. Lauten

Plaintiff:	Sunil Gupta, M.D., LLC
Defendant:	Wright B. Lauten
Case Number:	1:2017cv00136
Filed:	March 31, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
Office:	Mobile Office
County:	Mobile
Presiding Judge:	Kristi K. DuBose
Presiding Judge:	Katherine P. Nelson
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2201
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
February 5, 2018	Filing 44 ORDER ADOPTING 40 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting 34 Motion to Dismiss. The 35 Second and/or Renewed Motion to Abstain is denied as moot and this action is dismissed without prejudice, subject to the Plaintiff's ability to move to reinstate this action within a reasonable amount of time if it can demonstrate that it is unable to reassert its claims in the selected forum. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 2/5/18. (cmj)
November 14, 2017	Filing 32 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 MOTION to dismiss or alternatively to abstain or stay filed by Wright B. Lauten. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Defendant's motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied, is ADOPTED and the motion is DENIED. The Court declines to adopt the recommendation that Defendant's alternative motion to abstain or stay be denied as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 11/13/17. (cmj)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 5, 2018

Filing 44 ORDER ADOPTING 40 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting 34 Motion to Dismiss. The 35 Second and/or Renewed Motion to Abstain is denied as moot and this action is dismissed without prejudice, subject to the Plaintiff's ability to move to reinstate this action within a reasonable amount of time if it can demonstrate that it is unable to reassert its claims in the selected forum. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 2/5/18. (cmj)

November 14, 2017

Filing 32 ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 MOTION to dismiss or alternatively to abstain or stay filed by Wright B. Lauten. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Defendant's motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied, is ADOPTED and the motion is DENIED. The Court declines to adopt the recommendation that Defendant's alternative motion to abstain or stay be denied as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 11/13/17. (cmj)

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

Search for this case: Sunil Gupta, M.D., LLC v. Lauten
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sunil Gupta, M.D., LLC
Represented By:	R. Alan Alexander
Represented By:	David G. Hymer
Represented By:	Carlyn Emily 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 ]
Defendant: Wright B. Lauten
Represented By:	William J. Gamble, Jr.
Represented By:	Bradley Robert Sanders, 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?