Richardson v. Oppenheimer & CO. et al
| William A. Richardson |
| Albert Lowenthal, Robert Lowenthal, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Oppenheimer Asset Management, Inc., Oppenheimer Holdings, Inc., Mark Weinberg and Greg White |
| 2:2011cv02078 |
| December 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Peggy A. Leen |
| Gloria M. Navarro |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 12 U.S.C. ยง 22 Securities Fraud |
| 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
92
ORDER Granting 91 Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, each party shall bear their own respective costs and attorneys' fees. This is a final judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/31/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER granting 74 Motion for limited reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/8/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER that 54 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. FURTHER ORDERED that 55 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that 58 Motion to Strike is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 70 Motion for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/31/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER Granting 61 Motion to Extend Time to Reply re 54 MOTION to Dismiss. Replies due by 8/26/2013. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/23/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER Granting 52 Motion to Extend Time to Answer/Respnod re 43 Amended Complaint. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. answer due 8/2/2013; Oppenheimer Asset Management, Inc. answer due 8/2/2013; Oppenheimer Holdings, Inc. answer due 8/2/2013; Mark Weinberg answer due 8/2/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/2/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER Granting 49 Motion to Extend Time to Answer/Respond re Amended Complaint. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. answer due 7/31/2013; Oppenheimer Asset Management, Inc. answer due 7/31/2013; Oppenheimer Holdings, Inc. answer due 7/31/2013; Mark Weinberg answer due 7/31/2013.; Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. answer due 7/31/2013; Oppenheimer Asset Management, Inc. answer due 7/31/2013; Oppenheimer Holdings, Inc. answer due 7/31/2013; Mark Weinberg answer due 7/31/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/22/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER that 18 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint, provided that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is filed by June 3, 2013. Failure to comply with this Order will result in DISMISSAL with prejudice. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/10/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER that the parties' Stipulation 30 is NOT APPROVED and is DENIED. The Court's Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order 29 is VACATED and discovery is STAYED during the pendency of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Counsel shall meet a nd confer and submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 14 days of decision of the pending motion to dismiss with respect to any claims that survive. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/24/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
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 Nevada 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.
