Pepco Energy Services, Inc. v. Geiringer et al
| Pepco Energy Services, Inc. |
| Stefan L. Geiringer and SLG, Inc. |
| 2:2007cv04809 |
| November 19, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Nassau |
| William D. Wall |
| Leonard D. Wexler |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other 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
54
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the motion for reconsideration of the earlier order is granted in part, to consider the argument about electronic signatures , but, upon reconsideration, the earlier decision is adhered to in its entirety. Because no decision was reached on damages after the November 18 conference, the court will accept further, limited, briefing on that issue, as set forth in the order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/21/2010. (Hepworth, F.)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER granting 40 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of plaintiff; denying 43 Motion for Summary Judgment for defendants. The court will defer an award of damages and entry of judgment until after a conference to take place on November 18, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/30/2009. (Hepworth, F.)
|
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.
