MERCHANT CAPITAL, LLC et al v. MELANIA MARKS SKINCARE, LLC
| MERCHANT CAPITAL, LLC and NEW SUNSHINE, LLC |
| MELANIA MARKS SKINCARE, LLC |
| MELANIA MARKS SKINCARE, LLC |
| MERCHANT CAPITAL, LLC and NEW SUNSHINE, LLC |
| 1:2013cv00873 |
| May 29, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
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
105
ORDER denying 96 Motion for Reconsideration - The Court DENIES Merchant Capital's Motion to Reconsider, [Filing No. 96]. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint report regarding the status of this case and of the New York arbitration by September 8, 2014. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/27/2014. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
94
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - The License Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract, negotiated at arm's length by sophisticated parties. Merchant Capital and New Sunshine have not sustained their burden of showing that any ci rcumstances justify declaring the License Agreement void. Accordingly, the Court finds in favor of Melania Marks on Merchant Capital's and New Sunshine's Amended Complaint. Further, the Court DENIES Merchant Capital's and New Sunshin e's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, [dkt. 11], relating to Melania Marks' pursuit of the New York arbitration, and the stay on the New York arbitration, [see dkt. 25], is LIFTED. As to Melania Marks' counterclaim, the Court finds that Merchant Capital tortiously interfered with the License Agreement when it unilaterally and without justification declared it void and induced New Sunshine's breach. Accordingly, the Court finds in favor of Melania Marks on its coun terclaim against Merchant Capital. Further proceedings concerning Melania Marks' damages in connection with the tortious interference counterclaim will be held in this Court after the New York arbitration has concluded. No partial final judgme nt shall issue at this time. The magistrate judge is requested to conduct a conference with the parties to determine if this case can be administratively closed pending the completion of the arbitration. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/26/2013. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER to file joint jurisdictional statement- The Court orders the parties to file a joint jurisdictional statement by 6/14/2013, certifying the parties citizenship and that the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeded $7 5,000 at the time of removal. If the parties cannot agree on the parties citizenship, the amount in controversy, or any other jurisdictional requirement, they are ordered to file competing jurisdictional statements by that date setting forth their positions. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/7/2013.(CBU)
|
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 Southern 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.
