Antietam Industries, Inc. et al v. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.
Petitioner: Antietam Industries, Inc., William Warfel and Janice Warfel
Respondent: Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.
Case Number: 6:2012cv01250
Filed: August 14, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Office: Orlando Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Charlene Edwards Honeywell
Presiding Judge: Thomas B. Smith
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 09 U.S.C. ยง 0009
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER adopting in part and rejecting in part 42 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Petitioners' Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award 1 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Morgan Keegan's Motion to Vacate 7 is GR ANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioners' Motion for Sanctions 20 is DENIED. Morgan Keegan's Motion to Strike Petitioners' Notice of Filing of Supplemental Authority 35 is DENIED as moot. Petitioners' Request for Judic ial Notice 39 is DENIED as moot. Morgan Keegan's Request for Oral Arguement 47 is DENIED as moot. Within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of this Order, Petitioners shall submit a motion for attorneys' fees and costs incurred pursua nt to the claims made in the underlying arbitration and in defending the motion to vacate in this Court. Along with that motion, Petitioners shall submit a proposed judgment that includes both the arbitration award component and the attorneys' fees component. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 3/25/2013. (BGS)
October 2, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER denying as moot 13 Motion to quash; denying as moot 13 Motion for protective order; denying 16 Motion to quash; denying 16 Motion for protective order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 10/2/2012. (Smith, Thomas)
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 Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Antietam Industries, Inc. et al v. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Antietam Industries, Inc.
Represented By: Jennifer Poole Farrar
Represented By: Jeffrey Erez
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 ]
Petitioner: William Warfel
Represented By: Jennifer Poole Farrar
Represented By: Jeffrey Erez
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 ]
Petitioner: Janice Warfel
Represented By: Jeffrey Erez
Represented By: Jennifer Poole Farrar
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 ]
Respondent: Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.
Represented By: Jennifer L. Tomsen
Represented By: Terry R. Weiss
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?