Accelecare Wound Centers, Inc. v. The Bank Of New York et al
| Accelecare Wound Centers, Inc. |
| The Bank Of New York, Amicus Hyperbaric Group, LLC, Amicus Medical Group, LLC, Amicus West Texas Hyperbaric, L.P., Amicus Texas Hyperbaric, LP, Amicus Arizona Hyperbaric, L.P., Amicus South Texas Hyperbaric, LP, Amicus Valley Hyperbaric, LP and John R. Hedrick |
| 1:2008cv08351 |
| September 29, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Contract: Other Office |
| New York |
| Denise L. Cote |
| None |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
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
OPINION AND ORDER: Accelecare's October 6, 2009 motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part. The parties shall refer the Earn-Out calculation to a mutually agreed accounting firm and shall refer the valuation of Accelecare shares to a mutually agreed independent appraiser. (Signed Judge Denise L. Cote on 12/15/09) (ae) Modified on 12/16/2009 (ae).
|
|
Filing
97
ORDER that the parties are instructed to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Maas no later than 10/30/09 in order to pursue settlement discussions under his supervision. The deadlines set forth in the 5/4/09 scheduling order for pretrial proceedings in this case remain in place. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 10/9/09) (cd)
|
|
Filing
85
OPINION & ORDER re:# 97876 78 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Counterclaim filed by Amicus Valley Hyperbaric, LP, Amicus South Texas Hyperbaric, LP, Amicus Texas Hyperbaric, LP, Amicus Arizona Hyperbaric, L.P., Amicus West Texas Hyperbaric, L.P., Amicus Hyperbarlic Group, LLC., Amicus Hyperbaric Group, LLC, Amicus Medical Group, LLC, 69 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Counterclaim filed by Accelecare Wound Centers, Inc. The Amicus Parties' July 10, 2009 motion for leave t o file the SAC is denied. Accelecare's June 4, 2009 motion to dismiss the FAC is granted. The litigation shall continue according to the schedule set forth in the May 4 Scheduling Order. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 8/11/09) (tro) Modified on 8/13/2009 (eef).
|
|
Filing
57
OPINION AND ORDER #97480: The March 5, 2009 to dismiss filed in Accelecare Wound Centers, Inc. v. The Bank of New York, case no. 08-cv-8351, is granted in part. The counterclaim is dismissed in its entirety against Booth, Lester, and Spaniac. The cou nterclaim brought by Bullard, Austin, Collazzo, Vela, and Hyperbaric Partners is also dismissed in its entirety. The Amicus Parties' counterclaim against Accelecare is also dismissed except for its allegations that Accelecare failed to disburse $900,000 based on the earnings of Odessa Center and owes repayment of Luker and Morrow debts. The January 7, 2009 motion to dismiss filed in 08-cv-11314 is resolved on the same bases. A separate Order shall consolidate 08-cv-8351 and 08-cv-11314. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 5/4/2009) (jpo) Modified on 5/5/2009 (mro).
|
|
Filing
59
PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 5/15/2009. Discovery due by 1/29/2010. Joinder of Parties due by 5/15/2009. Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/19/2010. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 5/4/2009) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:08-cv-08351-DLC, 1:08-cv-11314-DLC(jpo)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER: It is hereby ordered that plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice to re-filing following a decision on plaintiff's motion to dismiss. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 2/2/2009) (jpo)
|
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 Southern 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.
