Sable v. Kirsh
Plaintiff: Michael Sable
Defendant: Edward Kirsh
Case Number: 2:2015cv04372
Filed: July 27, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge: Steven I. Locke
Presiding Judge: Arthur D. Spatt
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 14 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's 6 motion to vacate the default judgment is denied. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 10/13/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Sable v. Kirsh
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Edward Kirsh
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Sable
Represented By: Zachary Steven Rozenberg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?