Kelley v. Kanios et al
| Douglas A. Kelley |
| Chris M. Kanios, Chris M. Kanios 401(k) Savings Plan, The and National City Bank |
| 0:2018cv00823 |
| March 26, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Hennepin |
| Steven E. Rau |
| Susan Richard Nelson |
| Withdrawal |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 0157 |
| 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
153
ORDER in Response to 152 Plaintiff's Letter to District Judge, canceling October 20, 2020 status conference. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/15/2020. (MJC)
|
|
Filing
124
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION denying 102 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for an Order Certifying Questions of Law to the Minnesota Supreme Court; granting 108 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plai ntiff is accordingly entitled to recover prejudgment interest from Defendant Papadimos on the amount of $3,126,524.37, and from Defendant Kanios on the amount of $572,500.22, at the rate of 10% per annum from September 10, 2010 until f inal judgment is entered; and within seven days of this Order, the parties shall jointly file a calculation of the appropriate award of prejudgment interest pursuant to this Order so that the Court can enter final judgment in this matter. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 5/20/2019. (SMD)
|
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 Minnesota 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.
