Integrated Communications & Technologies, Inc. et al v. Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company et al
| Integrated Communications & Technologies, Inc., Jade Cheng, Jason Yuyi and Cathy Yu |
| Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company and Hewlett-Packard Financial Services (India) Private Limited |
| 1:2016cv10386 |
| February 23, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Leo T. Sorokin |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
555
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 513) AND TO STRIKE (DOC. NO. 537)entered. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 513) is ALLOWED resulting in the ent ry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiffs on each claim in the SAC, as explained in detail below: Counts I, II, V, VI, X: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of the HPFS Defendants and against Plaintiffs I CT, Styller, and the Individual Plaintiffs. Counts III-IV: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of HPFS India and against Plaintiff ICT. Count VII-VIII: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff s ICT, Styller, and the Individual Plaintiffs. Count IX: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of all Defendants and against the Individual Plaintiffs. Count XI: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of all Defendants and against all Plaintiffs. Count XII: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of all Defendants and against Plaintiff Styller, the Individual Plaintiffs, and the Family Plaintiffs. Count XIII: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of all Defendants a nd against Plaintiffs Jade Cheng and Caroline Marafao Cheng. The Motion for Summary Judgment is also ALLOWED as to two of the Defendants' three counterclaims, resulting in the entry of Partial Summary Judgment as follows: Countercla im II: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of the HPFS Defendants and against Plaintiff ICT only insofar as the Court concludes that ICT breached the relevant contract. Counterclaim I: Summary Judgment is entered in favor of all Defen dants and against Plaintiff ICT only insofar as the Court concludes that each Defendant is entitled to indemnification.As explained in this Memorandum and Order, the remainder of the counterclaims remain unadjudicated. The remaining parties (IC T and all Defendants) shall file a joint status report by December 3, 2021, stating their joint or separate proposals as to (1) how the remainder of this case shall proceed in light of this Order including the anticipated duration of the trial, and ( 2) whether the remaining counterclaims can be resolved as a matter of law without trial. The February 7, 2022, trial date remains the date for trial in this case. re 513 Motion for Summary Judgment; 537 Motion to Strike 513 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 537 MOTION to Strike and Preclude Plaintiffs' Untimely Document Productions (Simeone, Maria)
|
|
Filing
490
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered.Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 486) is DENIED. (Montes, Mariliz)
|
|
Filing
484
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The Motion for Remote Rule 35 Medical Examinations (Doc. No. 451 ) is DENIED. (Currie, Haley)
|
|
Filing
369
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered.Order on Pending Motions (Doc. Nos. 315, 318, 334, 339).The Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 315); ALLOWS IN PART Defendants' motion to exclude Plaintiffs 9; counterfeiting expert (Doc. No. 318); DENIES Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 334); DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Defendants' expert (Doc. No. 334); and DENIES Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. No. 339).The parties shall file a status report within 14 days presenting their respective positions as to the further discovery and motion practice required in advance of the trial scheduled in this case. (Montes, Mariliz)
|
|
Filing
115
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS entered denying 109 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 110 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 111 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Montes, Mariliz)
|
|
Filing
69
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, the Court: (1) ALLOWS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART,WITHOUT PREJUDICE, Defendant HPFS's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46); (2) DENIESWITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant HPFS India's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 57); and (3)DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 68). Plaintiffs have until February 8,2017, to file a motion for leave to amend and a proposed amended complaint, if they wish. Defendants may file a ny opposition to the motion within 14 days of the motion's filing. Alternatively, if Plaintiffs do not file a motion for leave to amend within 14 days, Defendants may renew any arguments from the instant Motions to Dismiss that have not been decided. (Montes, Mariliz)
|
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.
