Commonwealth Capital Corporation v. Tempe, City of et al
| Commonwealth Capital Corporation |
| Tempe, City of, Mobilepro Corporation and Neoreach, Inc. |
| 2:2009cv00274 |
| February 10, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Contract: Other Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| John W Sedwick |
| None |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
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
231
ORDER AND OPINION - For the reasons above, CCC's motions at docket 222 are DENIED. The Clerk will please amend the entry of judgment at docket 207 to reflect that the case was tried before the court. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/25/11.(LAD)
|
|
Filing
165
ORDER denying 120 Motion in Limine to Preclude David Heck, Richard Devlin, Tad Neeley and Graeme Gibson From Testifying About Subject Areas Not Previously Disclosed; denying 121 Motion in Limine to Preclude Jenae Naumann and Andrew Ching from Testifying. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 4/15/11.(JWS)
|
|
Filing
163
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 105 Motion in Limine. It is granted insofar as Exhibits B, N, O, P, Q, S, and T are not barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 408. It is denied to the extent that this order does not constitute a ruling as to any other aspects of those exhibits' admissibility. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 4/14/11. (JWS)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 106 Motion in Limine-Franceschina may testify as to the information identified in MobilePros initial disclosures; McCormick may not be called as a witness; and granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion in Limine-Abbott may testify as to the information identified in MobilePros initial disclosures. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 4/7/11.(JWS)
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER and OPINION, granting Plaintiff's 83 Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss its Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(2) as follows: (1) CCC's claims are dismisssed with prejudice, (2) this dismissal does not constitute a finding on the merits that CCC does not own any nodes in the network for purposes of Tempe's pending counterclaims. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 3/18/11.(REW)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER AND OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff CCC's motion at docket 47, for partial summary judgment on Count 3 of its complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted to the extent that there is no genuine dispute that the equipment sold by NeoReach to JTA did not remain subject to the abandonment provision in Tempe's contract with NeoReach. It is denied insofar as CCC has not established ownership of particular equipment in the city's Wi-Fi network. Defendant Tempe's motion at docket 55, for summary judgment in its favor on Count 3 of CCCs complaint and for summary judgment on its own action for declaratory judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 10/4/10.(LAD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona 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.
