Liberty Synergistics Inc v. Microflo LTD et al
| Liberty Synergistics Inc |
| Police Officers Does, Ecotech Limited, Edward Malkin and Microflo LTD |
| Scott E. Schutzman |
| 2:2011cv00523 |
| February 2, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| E. Thomas Boyle |
| Sandra J. Feuerstein |
| Personal Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 Petition for Removal- Property Damage (P.I |
| 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
170
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court has reviewed the unopposed Report and Recommendation and, finding no clear error, adopts the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion for a default judgment and orders judgment in the amount of $271,363.20. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 2/26/2019. (Fwd'd for judgment) (Brucella, Michelle)
|
|
Filing
166
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court adopts Judge Locke's report and recommendations in their entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff's cla ims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further orders a default judgment against Plaintiff as to Defendants' counterclaims, and respectfully refers the matter to Judge Locke for a determination of damages as to Defendants' counterclaims. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/18/2017. (McKenzie, Lindsay)
|
|
Filing
140
MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum and order, the Court adopts in part and declines to adopt in part Judge Walls report and recommendation. The Court denies Defend ants motion to strike the Complaint as to the named Defendants. The Court grants Defendants motion to strike the Complaint as to Does 1 through 20. The Court also denies Defendants motion for sanctions. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/25/2014. (Ramos, Christopher)
|
|
Filing
99
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 96 Motion to Stay. Defendants' motion for a stay is denied without prejudice to renew the motion prior to trial. The parties are directed to file a proposed briefing schedule for the motions for summary judgment by January 15, 2013. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 1/8/2013. (Lee, Margaret)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER granting 78 Motion to Compel: The Court's July 18, 2012 order is hereby modified to direct that plaintiff respond to the defendants' first request for documents served on June 14, 2012. Said response shall be within 10 days from the date of this order. See attached order for further details. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 8/2/2012. (Ehresman, Stephanie)
|
|
Filing
45
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. For the foregoing reasons, defendants' Special Motion to Strike Complaint for Malicious Prosecution per Cal. CCP 425.16 and Request for Sanctions in an Amount to be Determined (ECF No. 34) is DENIED. Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 10/26/2011. (Joy, Dolores)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER denying 34 Motion to Strike. Defendants Special Motion to Strike Complaint for Malicious Prosecution per Cal. CCP 425.16 and Request for Sanctions in an Amount to be Determined (ECF No. 34) is DENIED. SEE Order for further details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 10/19/2011. (Bacchus, 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.
