Burget et al v. Senak et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 14, 2017
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 86 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Anthony Floros by Plaintiffs Ron Burget, Dos Amigos, LLC, as modified in this Order. Judgment is entered against the Defendant, Harry Foloros, in favor of the Plaintiff, in the amount of $48,692.25, interest post judgment of 1.23% annum. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 9/14/2017. (lhc)
|August 14, 2017
OPINION AND ORDER The Plaintiff is granted until September 4 2017, to provide the additional requested documentation and citation in support of the Plaintiffs 86 Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Floros. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/14/17. (kjp)
|November 16, 2015
OPINION AND ORDER denying 47 Motion to Dismiss. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, solely for the purpose of adding Harry Anthony Floros as a party, on or before December 2, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 11/16/2015. (rmn)
|July 23, 2015
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 20 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Dft Mark Senak and DISMISSING without prejudice Count II (unjust enrichment), Count III (conversion), and Count IV (fraud) against both Dfts Mark Senak and RAM Entertainment Group, LLC for a failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Count I remains pending against both Dfts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 7/23/2015. (lhc)
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 Indiana Northern 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?