Hatteras Enterprises Inc et al v. Forsythe Cosmetic Group Ltd et al
| Hatteras Enterprises Inc, MadMack LLC and Debra Mattes |
| Color Club, LLC, Does, Forsythe Cosmetic Group, Ltd, Harriet Rose 2009 Irrevocable Trust, Harriet Rose and Michael Rose |
| 2:2015cv05887 |
| October 14, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Arlene R. Lindsay |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud |
| 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
111
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons set forth, defendants motion for summary judgment is DENIED for Counts Seven (Fraudulent Inducement), Eight (Securities Fraud under Cal. Cor p. Code § 25401), and Fourteen (Aiding and Abetting Fraud) as to the alleged misrepresentations regarding the size of defendants company and the large deal in place with Amway, but is otherwise GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs are directed to file a revised expert damages report reflecting the remaining claims within thirty days and advise the Court if they still intend to move forward. Defendants are to advise the Court ten days thereafter if they wish to pursue the counterclaims. SEE ATTACHED ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. So Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 8/25/2022. (Cubano, Jazmin)
|
|
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Defendants 43 motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in part, and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that the Plaintiffs statutory a nd common law claims for fraud, and the request for rescission based on fraud are dismissed. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice. It is denied to the extent that the Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract, and request for injunctive relief, accounting, and constructive trust survive. The Plaintiffs bare request for leave to amend is denied without prejudice as procedurally improper. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to refile their request as a formal motion. Such motion must be made within thirty days of this order. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/23/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
49
SHORT FORM ORDER - Presently pending before the Court is a 43 motion by the Defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FED. R. CIV. P. or Rule) 12(b)(6). However, the Court is unable to rule on the Defendants&# 039; motion at this time because neither party has briefed the issue of choice of law in any way. Therefore, the parties are directed to file briefs on the question of the choice of law. Accordingly, the parties are directed to file briefs no larger than ten (10) pages discussing the above issues on or before March 27, 2018. If either party wishes to respond to the other party's brief, they shall do so no later than April 3, 2018. Reply briefs are limited to five (5) pages. No extensions of time will be granted, as neither party saw fit to brief this issue in the first instance. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/6/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER denying 28 Motion to Change Venue - For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs motion to retransfer this case to the Central District of California is denied in its entirety. Further, on July 5, 2016, the parties fil ed a proposed stipulation requesting a stay of discovery during the pendency of this motion. In addition, the Plaintiffs indicated that in the event their motion for retransfer is denied, they would likely seek to appeal the August 5, 2015 Order in t he Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiffs are directed to file on ECF within seven days of the date of this Order a letter indicating how they intend to proceed with this case in light of this Order -- namely, whether they intend to file an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and if so, whether the Court must stay this matter during the pendency of that appeal. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/30/16. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
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.
