RBS Citizens, National Association v. Aresty et al
| RBS Citizens, National Association |
| Jeffrey Aresty and Aresty International Law Firm |
| Jeffrey Aresty and Aresty International Law Firm |
| RBS Citizens, National Association |
| 1:2009cv10116 |
| January 26, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Mark L. Wolf |
| Defendant |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
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
82
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. Order on Motions in Limine. The Defendants' First Motion in Limine to Exclude Recently Disclosed Witnesses and Documents (Docket # 73) is ALLOWED to the extent that the Defendants may depose the witness prior to the trial and that the Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the deposition, including the cost of the expedited transcript for the Parties. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Prohibit Defendants From Arguing that the Fraudulent Check at Issue in This Case Was Returned to Citizens on November 2, 2007 (Docket # 74) is DENIED, without prejudice to the issue being revisited after the evidence is heard. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Argument, Evidence or Testimony regarding the Coding and Information on the Back of the Check (Docket # 75) is DENIED. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude the Pinzler Affidavit (Docket # 76) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude the Defendants from Arguing Negligence as a Defense to Citizens' Breach of Contract and UCC Charge-Back Claims (Docket # 77) is DENIED. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude the Defendan ts from Arguing Negligence Because They Cannot Submit Admissible Evidence on the Standard of Care (Docket # 78) is DENIED, without prejudice to revisiting the issues raised therein as the evidence develops during trial. The Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Defendants From Arguing a Special Relationship (Docket # 79) is DENIED, also without prejudice to revisiting the issues raised therein as the evidence develops during trial. See attached Order. (Chernetsky, James)
|
|
Filing
66
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS; Defendant Arestys Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket # 42) is ALLOWED. Aresty moves for sanctions, contending that by pressing the argument in support of piercing the corporate veil set forth above, Citizens counsel violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Motion (Docket # 60) is DENIED. Citizens moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract and UCC claims against the Aresty International Law Firm. This Motion (Docket # 43) is DENIED due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact.Trial will commence on October 17, 2011. A separate trial order will issue (Simeone, Maria)
|
|
Filing
61
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered ; ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS; The Motion for Leave to File A Reply (Docket #57) is ALLOWED; The Motion to Impound (Docket #56) is ALLOWED; The Motion to Strike (Docket # 58) is DENIED EXCEPT AS SET FORTH HEREIN; The Court will hold a hearing on the pending motions for summary judgment (docket #s 42 & 43) on May 26, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #24. (Simeone, Maria)
|
|
Filing
24
Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered; ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL; The motion is ALLOWED IN PART with respect to Request Nos. 14 and 15 in that RBS Citizens shall produce documents in its possession, if any, reflecting the training Ms. Hickey received during her eight years as a Citizens employee. The Motion is otherwise DENIED as to these two requests. The motion is DENIED with respect to Request No. 18. SO ORDERED. (Simeone, Maria)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
