Lyle v. James et al
| Patrick G. Lyle |
| Herman James, Lester James, Robert James, Jr., Thelma R. Russell, Sherman James, Jacob James, Duane K. James, Irving James, Ann Abdullah and Ira L. James |
| 3:2012cv00959 |
| June 29, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Vanessa L. Bryant |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1335 |
| None |
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
55
MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT'S DECISION FOLLOWING BENCH TRIAL. See the attached Memorandum of Decision fully articulating the Court's reasons for its ruling after the bench trial in this matter. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment a gainst Ira James on his unjust enrichment claim and to close this case. Pursuant to the Court's April 24, 2014 Order at docket no. 51, Plaintiff Patrick G. Lyle shall receive attorney's fees in the amount of $2,940.84, to be paid from the funds deposited with this Court on October 28, 2013, which at that time totaled $9,437.50. The remainder of those funds (including interest accrued) shall be distributed, pro rata, in equal shares to the ten Defendants in this action: Ira L. James, Irving James, Thelma R. Russell, Sherman James, Jacob James, Duane K. James, Ann Abdullah, Herman James, Lester James, and Robert James, Jr. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 6/25/14. (Ives, D)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
