Bunnell et al v. Haghighi
| Dennis Bunnell and Kathleen Bunnell |
| Farzad Haghighi |
| 1:2012cv06412 |
| December 28, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Frederic Block |
| Steven M. Gold |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| 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
99
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Finding no clear error in the unobjected-to portions, MJ Gold's Report and Recommendation 96 is adopted in full. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the Report and Recommendation. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 4/29/2016. (Innelli, Michael)
|
|
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERED: The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor ofHaghighi and against the Bunnells in the amount of $125,000, representingHaghighis down payment on the Bunnells Home. In addition, Haghighi is entitled to any interest accrued on the down payment and to post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 7/27/2015. (Innelli, Michael)
|
|
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The defendant's letter application 68 demanding a jury trial is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Court's attached Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 10/6/2014. (Innelli, Michael)
|
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.
