Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|April 23, 2015
ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on April 23, 2015. The parties' 101 Joint Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is DENIED. (SC, ilcd)
|March 5, 2015
LPS's 77 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and summary judgment is granted as to all counts of 31 Fidlar's Amended Complaint. Because the motion is granted in its entirety, LPS's 79 Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Ju dgment on Certain of Fidlar's Claims for Damages is MOOT. Because other claims remain in this matter-namely, LPS's claims for equitable relief, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with business expectancy-entry of judgment is not appropriate at this time. (SC, ilcd)
|January 6, 2015
ORDER: Court grants in part and denies in part LPS's 75 Motion to exclude untimely disclosed evidence (previously taken under advisement at the 12/17/14 hearing). Further, the Court denies Didlar's 84 Motion for Leave to File as nothing in Fidlars proposed exhibit changes the Courts analysis herein. See written order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 1/6/15. (WG, ilcd)
|November 8, 2013
ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on November 8, 2013, DENYING LPS's 35 Motion to Dismiss, 14 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and 9 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Fidlar's 30 Motion to Unseal the Case is MOOT, and the Court GRANTS LPS's 33 Motion for Leave to File its Response Under Seal. The Clerk is directed to unseal 25 , 28 , and [31-1]. (MRD, ilcd)
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 Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?