Currier, McCabe & Associates, Inc. v. Public Consulting Group, Inc.
||Currier, McCabe & Associates, Inc.
||Public Consulting Group, Inc.
||June 21, 2013
||US District Court for the Northern District of New York
||Gary L. Sharpe
||Randolph F. Treece
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|October 24, 2017
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That CMA's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 91) is DENIED. That CMA's motion to preclude expert testimony (Dkt. No. 91) is DENIED with leave to renew. That PCG's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 93) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: GRANTED with respect to CMA's unjust enrichment claim; and DENIED in all other respects. That PCG's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 104) is DENIED as moot. That this case is deemed trial ready and a scheduling order shall issue in due course. Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 10/24/2017. (jel, )
|March 7, 2014
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That PCG's 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: GRANTED with respect to CMA' claim of fraudulent inducement; and DENIED in all other respects. That PCG file the appropriate responsive pleadings within the time alloted by the rules. That the parties notify Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece in order to schedule further proceedings in accordance with this order. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 3/7/2014. (jel, )
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?