Soroko et al v. The Cadle Company, et al
| Gary Soroko, Rosalyn Soroko, Clifton Chase, Linda Chase, John D. Gaziano, Patricia Gaziano, Glenn Monteiro, Rufus Darby and Gail Charest |
| The Cadle Company, The Cadle Company II, The Cadle Company of Ohio, Inc., The Cadle Company as General Partner of Atlantic Joint Venture, Cadlerock II, Inc. and Daniel C. Cadle |
| 1:2010cv11788 |
| October 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Essex |
| George A. OToole |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
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
81
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 17 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by John D. Gaziano, Rufus Darby, Linda Chase, Glenn Monteiro, Clifton Chase, Gary Soroko, Patricia Gaziano, Rosalyn Soroko, 51 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by The Cadle Company of Ohio, Inc., The Cadle Company, The Cadle Company II, The Cadle Company as General Partner of Atlantic Joint Venture, Cadlerock II, Inc., Daniel C. Cadle, 74 Report and Recommendations,, Action on motions: The Plaintiffs' 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and the Defendants' 51 Cross Motion as to the Breach of Contract Claim is GRANTED(Danieli, Chris)
|
|
Filing
61
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered. (Danieli, Chris)
|
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.
