Abcon Associates, Inc., v. Haas & Najarian et al
| Abcon Associates, Inc., |
| Haas & Najarian and Haas & Najarian, LLP |
| 2:2012cv00928 |
| February 27, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Leonard D. Wexler |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable |
| 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
103
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that Defendants breached the parties' agreement by failing to return its share of the distribution once Abcon was no longer satisfied with the re solution that was achieved with NYCB. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff $463,000 on its claim for breach of contract. Further, the Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently stated a claim for quantummeruit, and awards Defendants $568,845 in fees for the services provided to Plaintiff Abcon. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants are directed to submit a proposed order of judgment. (Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 2/29/2016.) (Fagan, Linda)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER denying 75 Motion for Sanctions. Defendants' motion for the imposition of sanctions based on spoliation is DENIED. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 10/6/2014. (Kandel, Erin)
|
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.
