AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG et al
Plaintiff: AngioDynamics, Inc.
Defendant: Biolitec AG and Wolfgang Neuberger
Case Number: 3:2009cv30181
Filed: October 26, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Springfield Office
County: Hampden
Presiding Judge: Michael A Ponsor
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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
March 29, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 656 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 522 Motion for Sanctions, 622 Motion for Attorney Fees and 639 Motion for Sanctions ENTERED. "...In summary, the court rules as follows. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37 (Dkt. No. 522) is hereby ALLOWED, in part. Defendants have until April 15, 2018, to serve full and complete answers to Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production. Absent compliance, the court orders t hat Defendants pay $25,000 to the Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on or before April 15, 2018, and on the 15th of every month thereafter, up to a maximum of $1,000,000, until Defendants have complied with the court's order.Plaintiff's Motion for Expenses (Dkt. No. 622) is hereby ALLOWED in the amount of $48,930. Both Defendants and their primary counsel, The Griffin Firm, are jointly and severally liable for this am ount, which must be paid to Plaintiff's counsel on or before May 1, 2018. In the event of an appeal, the funds will be paid to the Clerk.Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions (Dkt. No. 639) ishereby DENIED." See Order for details. (Healy, Bethaney)
May 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 427 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered denying 420 Motion for Reconsideration of Default Judgment. DENIED. Defendants' memos largely reash arguments already made and revealed as meritless. Nothing offered by defendants justifies the extra ordinary relief requested. So ordered. (Lindsay, Maurice)
March 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 417 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DAMAGES entered. As follows: For the reasons stated. the court hereby orders the clerk to enter judgment, jointly and severally, against Defendants BAG (and/or the Austrianentity now bearing tha t name), Biomed, and Wolfgang Neuberger, in the amount of $74,920,422.57, consisting of: Actual damages in the amount of $23,156,287.00, trebled under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A to $69,468,861.00., Pre-judgment interest from the date of t he NY judgment, November 8, 2012, and the February 24, 2014, damages hearing, in the amount of $3,600,961.23., Reasonable attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $1,850,600.34., The clerk will enter judgment for Plaintiff. This case may now be closed. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
January 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 395 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: For the reasons stated in the attached memo and order, Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, (Dkt. No. 327 ), and Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions for Failur e of Managing Agents Brian Foley, Art Henneberger, and Bolesh Skutnik to Appear for Depositions, (Dkt. No. 350 ), are hereby ALLOWED. Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment Based on the Courts August 30, 2013, Memorandum and Order and Defendants Oc tober 1, 2013 Status Report, (Dkt. No. 359 ), is DENIED as moot. The clerk shall enter judgment for Plaintiff on the issue of liability. Plaintiff shall file a memorandum setting forth its position on the issue of damages no later than January 31, 2 014. Defendants response will be filed no later than February 17, 2014. The clerk will schedule a non-evidentiary hearing on the issue of damages for a date prior to March 1, 2014. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
August 27, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 341 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: For the reasons stated in the attached memo and order, Defendants Amended Motion for Relief from Contempt Order (Dkt. No. 269 ), Defendants Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 277 ), and Defendants Motion for Recusal (Dkt. No. 274 ) are all hereby DENIED. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details.(Lindsay, Maurice)
June 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 309 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered. Re: Defendant's 302 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order denying motion to compel third party deposition and granting motion to quash subpoena. OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. (Lindsay, Maurice)
May 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 275 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered denying 214 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. DENIED, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's opposition. The motion comes too late, and to the extent that the arguments have merit, the court may reconsider them at trial, So ordered. (Lindsay, Maurice)
April 11, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 247 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT granting 205 Motion for Contempt Plaintiffs emergency motion for contempt (Dkt. No. 205) is hereby ALLOWED. The court has issued an arrest warrant for Defendant Wolfgang Neuberger for civil contempt and will refer the matter to the United States Attorneys Office for criminal contempt prosecution. (See attached Order for fines and other information.) (Pelegano, Theresa)
December 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 183 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows; For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum and order, the Defendants motion for reconsideration and for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 144 ) is hereby DENIED. The case will proceed, subject to the injunction, in accordance with the scheduling order previously entered. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
July 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 53 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: Defendants 13 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) is hereby DENIED. The clerk will refer the matter to Magistrate Judge Neiman for a Rule 16 status conference. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
May 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 47 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: Plaintiffs Motion for Order Authorizing Substituted Service Under Rule 4(f) and for an Award of Costs (Dkt. No. 30 ) is hereby ALLOWED IN PART. Under these circumstances, the court or ders that Plaintiff may make service upon Defendants Neuberger and Biomed through defense counsel and through the parties e-mail address. In allowing Plaintiffs motion, the court does not wish to suggest that the service effectuated up to now was ine ffective. The order permitting substituted service is simply intended to insure no ambiguity or future controversy with regard to service of process. Defendants Biomed and Neuberger will now file their answer or responsive pleadings within the time l imits set by the civil rules. If additional time is desired, a motion requesting an extension should be filed with an indication of assent, if any. Insofar as Plaintiffs motion also seeks an award of costs, the motion is DENIED IN PART, without prejudice. If Plaintiff is ultimately successful in this litigation, itmay apply for these costs as part of the Bill of Costs at that time. It is So Ordered. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG 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: AngioDynamics, Inc.
Represented By: William E. Reynolds
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: Biolitec AG
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: Wolfgang Neuberger
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?