L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc. v. Thales Transport & Security, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc. v. Thales Transport & Security, Inc.

L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc. v. Thales Transport & Security, Inc.

Plaintiff:	L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc.
Defendant:	Thales Transport & Security, Inc.
Case Number:	1:2009cv03352
Filed:	August 4, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
County:	Kings
Presiding Judge:	Raymond J. Dearie
Presiding Judge:	Viktor V. Pohorelsky
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 2, 2009	Filing 27 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. Defendant is enjoined from soliciting or receiving bids or proposals from companies other than LKC to install Thale's CBTC system on NYCT's Flushing Line and from submitting a bid to the NYCT for the Flushing Line project that names any company other than LKC as its installation contractor. Any bids received in response to defendant's 7/30/09 RFP shall be delivered unopened to counsel and held u ntil the dispute is resolved. Despite the unfortunate posture of the parties, it is anticipated that they will work together to expedite the arbitration process. Defendant shall undertake a comprehensive review of documents in its possession, ensuring that all confidential information within the scope of the NDA is returned to LKC. Ordered by Chief Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 9/2/2009. (Chee, Alvin)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 2, 2009

Filing 27 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. Defendant is enjoined from soliciting or receiving bids or proposals from companies other than LKC to install Thale's CBTC system on NYCT's Flushing Line and from submitting a bid to the NYCT for the Flushing Line project that names any company other than LKC as its installation contractor. Any bids received in response to defendant's 7/30/09 RFP shall be delivered unopened to counsel and held u ntil the dispute is resolved. Despite the unfortunate posture of the parties, it is anticipated that they will work together to expedite the arbitration process. Defendant shall undertake a comprehensive review of documents in its possession, ensuring that all confidential information within the scope of the NDA is returned to LKC. Ordered by Chief Judge Raymond J. Dearie on 9/2/2009. (Chee, Alvin)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc. v. Thales Transport & Security, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc.
Represented By:	Robert Bergen
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: Thales Transport & Security, Inc.
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?