ARMOUR Capital Management LP v. SS&C Technologies, Inc.
| ARMOUR Capital Management LP |
| SS&C Technologies, Inc. |
| 3:2017cv00790 |
| May 15, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
276
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part and DEFERS in part the parties' motions in limine as set forth therein. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 01/05/2020. (Mahler-Haug, A)
|
|
Filing
194
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part SS&C's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 176 ). The Court DEN IES the motion for summary judgment as to ACM's claims for negligent misrepresentation, CUTPA, and rescission. The Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment as to ACM's contract claim. The parties shall file their joint trial memorandum on or before November 15, 2019, and jury selection shall proceed on January 2, 2020, with trial evidence to begin on January 6, 2020. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 09/11/2019. (Mahler-Haug, A)
|
|
Filing
183
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying ruling, ACM's motion to dismiss SS&C's counterclaims (Doc. # 105 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As to Counterclaim One for breach of contract, ACM's motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the extent that SS&C's claim is based on acts of breach that occurred prior to July 20, 2016, but DENIED to the extent that SS&C's claim is based on acts of breach that occurred after July 20, 2016. As to Counterclaim Two for unjust enrichment, ACM's motion to dismiss is DENIED. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/19/2019. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, I GRANT in part and DENY in part SS&C's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 43 ) the amended complaint. I grant the motion to dismiss Count Three (intentional misrepresentation). I grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss Counts One (breach of contract), Two (CUTPA), and Four (negligent misrepresentation). I deny the motion to dismiss Count Five (rescission). It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/16/2018. (Zuckier, C.)
|
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.
