Configair LLC v. Kurz

Configair LLC v. Kurz

Plaintiff:	Configair LLC
Defendant:	Henry Kurz
Case Number:	3:2017cv02026
Filed:	December 5, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	Fairfield
Presiding Judge:	Janet Bond Arterton
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
July 31, 2019	Filing 119 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth in the attach ed Ruling, the partial motion to dismiss HKC's Complaint is denied with respect to Count III and granted with respect to Count V. The motion to dismiss Kurz's Amended Third Party Complaint is granted with respect to Count II (including both the direct and derivative claims), granted with respect to Counts I and III's direct claims, denied with respect to Count I and III's derivative claims, and denied with respect to Count IV. ConfigAir's Motion for Judgment on the Plead ings is denied with respect to Counts I and II of ConfigAir's Second Amended Complaint. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted with respect to Counts II and III of Kurz's Counterclaims, granted with respect to Count X's direct claim, denied with respect to Count X's derivative claim, and denied with respect to all remaining Counts. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/31/19. (Kolker, J.)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 31, 2019

Filing 119 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth in the attach ed Ruling, the partial motion to dismiss HKC's Complaint is denied with respect to Count III and granted with respect to Count V. The motion to dismiss Kurz's Amended Third Party Complaint is granted with respect to Count II (including both the direct and derivative claims), granted with respect to Counts I and III's direct claims, denied with respect to Count I and III's derivative claims, and denied with respect to Count IV. ConfigAir's Motion for Judgment on the Plead ings is denied with respect to Counts I and II of ConfigAir's Second Amended Complaint. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted with respect to Counts II and III of Kurz's Counterclaims, granted with respect to Count X's direct claim, denied with respect to Count X's derivative claim, and denied with respect to all remaining Counts. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/31/19. (Kolker, J.)

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

Search for this case: Configair LLC v. Kurz
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Configair LLC
Represented By:	Rebecca Anne Brazzano
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: Henry Kurz
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?