Montana Jewelry Inc. v. Risis et al
| Montana Jewelry Inc. |
| Daniel Risis, Kipitok Inc., Pickled Diamond LLC and Mark Risis |
| 1:2011cv04875 |
| October 6, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Steven M. Gold |
| Dora Lizette Irizarry |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) |
| 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
16
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff's ACPA claim (First Claim), breach of contract claim (Second Claim), and respective claims for attorney fees, and is granted as to Plaintiff's intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (Third Claim) and breach of fiduciary duty (Fourth Cla im) claims. In addition, the amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety as to Pickled Diamond, LLC. The Clerk of the Court is directed to note the termination of defendant Pickled Diamond, LLC on the docket sheet. This case is referred to the Hon. Steven M. Gold, Chief U.S.M.J., for further pretrial proceedings, including any settlement discussions. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/26/2013. (Irizarry, Dora)
|
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 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.
