Makhoul v. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP et al
| George Makhoul |
| Christopher M. Anzidei, Christopher Brasco, Vivian Katsantonis, Mark Sgarlata and Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP |
| 1:2011cv05108 |
| October 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| John Gleeson |
| Marilyn D. Go |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
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
124
ORDER granting 104 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum and Order, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 9/2/2015. (Driscoll, Katherine)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER denying 91 Motion to Compel. Please see attached document. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 7/10/2014. (Lozar, Ryan)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER. Please see the attached Order discussing the Court's in camera review of approximately sixty privileged documents for the existence of evidence supportive of an attorney-client relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff. On or before 4/2/2014, Defendants are to file a status report with the Court indicating their compliance with the Order. On receipt of the status report, the Court will schedule a telephone conference to discuss outstanding discovery on the discrete issue of an attorney-client relationship, if any, and a summary judgment briefing schedule. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 3/12/2014. (Lozar, Ryan)
|
|
Filing
71
Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go on 1/4/13. Appearances by plaintiff G. Makhoul; K. Glenn and M. Rice for defendant; defendant V. Katsontonis present. Rulings made on the record denying in part and deferring i n part 68 plaintiffs motion to compel. Those aspects of motion which repeat arguments previously made and denied by this Court are denied. That part of the motion regarding defendants' supplementary responses to plaintiffs interrogatories an d requests for admission is denied because the Court finds the responses sufficient. As to the remaining aspect of the motion, the Court will conduct an in camera review of certain documents as set forth in the attached minute order. (Tape #FTR/C 10:11-10:47.) (Proujansky, Josh)
|
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.
