Catipovic v. Turley et al
Plaintiff: Branimir Catipovic
Defendant: Mark Turley, Ronald Fagen and Fagen, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2011cv03074
Filed: December 29, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
Office: Central Division Office
County: Cerro Gordo
Presiding Judge: Mark W Bennett
Presiding Judge: Paul A Zoss
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 17, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 217 AMENDED JUDGMENT On Jury Verdict for Damages For Unjust Enrichment in favor of Plaintiff Branimir Catipovic against Defendant Mark Turley in the amount of $2,000,000.00, and post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 2/17/2015. (src)
January 29, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 213 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order denying in its entirety 199 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for Remittitur or New Trial filed by Mark Turley and 200 Post-Trial Motion To Amend the Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) and 59(a) filed by Branimir Catipovic. In light of these dispositions, Defendant Turley shall have to and including 2/6/2015 to file a supplemental response to 201 Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motion to Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 1/29/2015. (des)
October 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 172 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 108 Objections filed by Branimir Catipovic. Objections are overruled and Judge Strand's Order 97 is affirmed. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 10/25/2014. (Mastalir, Roger)
June 16, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 168 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 165 Motion for A Pretrial Evidentiary Hearing on the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction. The question of this courts personal jurisdiction over Turley will be resolved at or after trial, in conjunction with the intertwined issues of the merits of Catipovics claims against Turley. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 6/16/14. (djs)
February 27, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 129 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 126 Motion to Establish a Trial Schedule to Accomodate Special Circumstances. See text of Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leonard T Strand on 2/27/14. (djs)
January 21, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 125 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER: Denying 68 Motion for Summary Judgment: Denying 82 Motion for Summary Judgment: Denying 98 Motion for Summary Judgment: This matter will proceed to trial on all claims against all Defendants, as currently scheduled, on April 14, 2014. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 01/21/14. (kfs)
August 28, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 81 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Granting 77 Motion to Continue Summary Judgment Proceedings RE: 68 Motion for Summary Judgment: Plaintiff Catipovic's Response ddl 11/22/2013. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 08/28/13. (kfs)
August 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 76 ORDER denying without prejudice 74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Resistance to 68 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Branimir Catipovic. Catipovic may refile the Motion for Extension of Summary Judgment Resistance in compliance with Rule 56(d) of the FRCP and Local Rule 56(h) if filed not later than 8/27/2013. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 8/23/13. (djs)
July 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 67 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 64 Objections filed by Branimir Catipovic to 63 Order denying Motion for Leave to File Document. Objections To Order Denying Motion For Leave To Amend (docket no. 64) are overruled, and the July 2, 2013, Order (docket no. 63) of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles, denying Catipovics May 29, 2013, Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint (docket no. 60), is affirmed. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 7/30/13. (djs)
April 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Quash; granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Compel. (See text of order for specifics) Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Jon S Scoles on 4/19/2013. (pac)
June 8, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 25 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Denying 16 Motion to Dismiss: Denying 18 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 06/08/12. (kfs)
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 Iowa Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Catipovic v. Turley et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Branimir Catipovic
Represented By: Paul D Gamez
Represented By: Kevin J Visser
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 ]
Defendant: Mark Turley
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 ]
Defendant: Ronald Fagen
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 ]
Defendant: Fagen, Inc.
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?