Lath v. Vallee et al
| Sanjeev Lath |
| John Bisson, Gerard Dufresne, Vickie Grandmaison, Christos Klardie, Warren Mills, William Quinn Morey, Betty Mullen, Oak Brook Condominium Owners' Association, Scott Sample, Patty Taylor, Cheryl Vallee and Perry Vallee |
| 1:2016cv00463 |
| October 18, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of New Hampshire |
| Concord Office |
| Landya B. McCafferty |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| 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
292
/// ORDER. For the reasons detailed within, Lath's show cause brief, document no. 272, fails to show cause why Counts 11(a), 12(a), and 15 should not be dismissed as barred by the Provencher litigation privilege. Accordingly, those three claims are dismissed and, as a consequence, this case now consists of three claims (Counts 2, 4, and 13), against a single defendant, Oak Brook Condominium Owners Association. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(de)
|
|
Filing
265
AMENDED ORDER [REPLACING DOC. NO. 264] denying 198 Motion to Amend 1 Complaint ; denying 212 Motion to Amend. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
258
ORDER denying 166 Motion for Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
205
///ORDER granting 155 Motion for Summary Judgment. Both Count 1 and Warren Mills are dismissed from this case. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
202
///AMENDED ORDER granting 154 Motion for Summary Judgment. Vallee's motion is granted, and both Count 10 and Perry Vallee are dismissed from this case. [REPLACES DOC. NO. 201. AMENDED TO REFLECT THE CORRECT DOCUMENT NUMBER OF VALLEE'S MOTION - DOC. NO. 154.] So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
170
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 116 Motion for Leave to File First Supplement to Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Rule 15(d) motion is granted as to his invasion of privacy claim, but denied as to his proposed conspiracy claim. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
91
///ORDER denying as moot 80 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons detailed in this order, Counts 3(a)-(i), Counts 5-8, and Count 14 of the SAC are all dismissed, and this case is now limited to Counts 1, 2, 4, and 9-13. In light of the courts dismissal of Count 14, John Bissons motion for reconsideration, document no. 80, is denied as moot. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER denying 51 Motion to Intervene; denying 76 Motion to Strike 68 Response to Motion, 69 Response to Motion. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
72
///ORDER granting in part 48 Motion to Amend Complaint, denying as moot 26 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 33 Motion t o Dismiss. The claims asserted in Causes 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 of the SAC are dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, and the claims asserted in Causes 16, 17, 26, 31, 32, 33, and the § 1983 claims asserted in Cause 21 are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER denying 20 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Gary M. Burt; granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Strike Notice of Counsel Conduct; denying 37 Motion to Disqualify Attorney Joshua Wyatt and Attorney Daniel Will. So Ordered by Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)
|
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 New Hampshire 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.
