R. Prasad Industries v. Flat Irons Environmental Solutions Corporation et al
| R. Prasad Industries |
| Flat Irons Environmental Solutions Corporation, Gary Miller, Unknown Miller, Robert Carlile, Unknown Carlile, James Keylon and Unknown Keylon |
| 3:2012cv08261 |
| December 30, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Prescott Division Office |
| XX Outside US |
| James A Teilborg |
| Other Statutes: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
233
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or in the Alternative, Request to Transfer the Case to the Central District of California (Doc. 213 ) (the Clerk of the Court shall leave the proposedmotion lodged at Doc. 214 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Monetary Sanctions (Doc. 217) is also DENIED [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/4/17.(MAW)
|
|
Filing
145
ORDER that Michele Di Carlo and MPP Consulting's 135 Motion to Re-Open Time to File an Appeal is DENIED. Ms. Di Carlo and MPP Consulting are barred from appealing from this Court's Order denying her motion to quash the subpoena Plai ntiff issued to Union Bank of California. ORDERED that Plaintiff's 134 Amended Motion to Compel Union Bank of California's Compliance with Subpoena is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Union Bank of California shall comply with the subpoena issued by Plaintiff on March 7, 2014. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 12/9/2014.(LFIG)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER, Defendants shall file a sur-reply to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment by 11/14/14, addressing only the new evidence and arguments offered by Plaintiff in its reply to its motion for partial summary judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 11/10/14. (REW)
|
|
Filing
129
ORDER, Hovore's Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) 85 is granted; final judgment is entered in favor of the Hovore Defendants and against the Carlile Defendants with respect to Counts I, II, III, and IV; final judgment is entered in favor of the Hovore Defendants and against all Defendants with respect to Count V; Hovore's Motion for Sanctions 84 is granted; Hovore is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $37,909.00 from attorney Frederic M Douglas; Prasad's Motion for Sanctions 89 is denied. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/23/14. (REW)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER that the 102 Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED; however, production is limited as specified in this Order. ORDERED that within seven days of the issuance of this Order, Prasad shall deliver a copy of this Order to UBOC and specifically communicate the above temporal limitation on the previously issued subpoena. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/19/2014.(LFIG)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 16 Motion to Dismiss. Count Three is dismissed with prejudice. Counts Four, Twelve, and Thirteen are dismissed without prejudice. The Motion is denied in all other respects. ORDERED that the 26 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer is granted in part and denied in part to the limited extent that all Defendants shall answer the Complaint by June 21, 2013. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/20/2013. (LFIG)
|
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 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.
