TJGEM LLC v. REPUBLIC OF GHANA et al
| TJGEM LLC |
| KWABENA DUFOUR, REPUBLIC OF GHANA, ACCRA METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY, ALFRED O VANDERPUIJE and CONTI CONSTRUCTION CO INC |
| 1:2013cv00382 |
| March 22, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Washington, DC Office |
| 88888 |
| Beryl A. Howell |
| P.I.: Other |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 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
107
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding Defendant Conti's 40 Motion to Dismiss the 29 First Amended Complaint; the plaintiff's 42 Motion to Strike Defendant Conti's Motion to Dismiss; Defendants Republic of Ghana, Accra Metropolitan Assembl y, Kwabena Dufour, and Alfred O. Vanderpuije's ("the Ghana Defendants") 51 Motion to Dismiss the 29 First Amended Complaint; the plaintiff's 62 Motion to Strike the Declarations and Documents or Exhibits filed with the Ghana Defendants' 51 Motion to Dismiss; the plaintiff's 83 Amended Motion to Stay; Defendants Kwame Building Group, Inc., Craig Lucas, and Anthony Thompson's ("the KBG Defendants") 53 Motion to Dismiss the 29 First Amended Complaint; the KBG Defendants' 92 Motion to Join the Other Defendants' Oppositions to the plaintiff's 83 Amended Motion to Stay; and the plaintiff's 89 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 31, 2013. (lcbah1)
|
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 District Of Columbia 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.
