Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Group, Inc.
| Idea Nuova, Inc. |
| GM Licensing Group, Inc. |
| 1:2008cv08595 |
| October 8, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Contract: Other Office |
| New York |
| P. Kevin Castel |
| None |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement |
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
43
ORDER: The absence of a final judgment in this case and the availability of a supersedeas bond once final judgment is entered leads me to conclude that the burden on non-party garnishees outweighs the plaintiffs need in this case. All other relief sought by plaintiff is denied. I invite plaintiffs counsel to submit a proposed final judgment through the Court's judgment clerk and on notice to opposing counsel. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/26/2009) (jpo)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER.....Now that it has come to my attention that these restraining notices, if left standing, may place non-parties in default of their credit agreements with other nonparties, I will direct plaintiff s counsel to show cause in writing by 5 p.m. O ctober 26, 2009 why all such notices should be vacated and other relief granted. I will also direct defendant's counsel to show cause in writing by 5p.m. October 26, 2009 why a final judgment ought not be entered based upon the Memorandum and Order of August 19, 2009, subject to amendment based upon any subsequent award of attorneys' fees. So ordered. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/23/09) (cd)
|
|
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons outlined above, GM's petition for confirmation of the Award is granted. Idea Nuova's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for vacatur or modification of the Award, is denied. Because the Court concludes that Idea Nuova has failed to identify any ground for vacatur or modification under the FAA, Idea Nuova's claims for such relief in the Second Amended Complaint are also dismissed. As the prevailing party in this dispute, GM is entitled to an award of the reasonable costs, attorney's fees and other expenses that it has incurred in connection with this action. (Agreement at 3.) The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the amount of that award. Failing agreement with Idea Nuova, GM is directed to submit a specific award request, with supporting documentation, to the Court for review within 20 days of the date of this Order. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/19/2009) (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
| Search for this case: Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Group, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Idea Nuova, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | John Peter Bostany |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: GM Licensing Group, Inc. | |
| 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.
