Rai et al v. WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC
| Aviral Rai and Sangeeta Rai |
| WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC |
| 1:2009cv09586 |
| November 18, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Paul G. Gardephe |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
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
121
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 113 MOTION for Attorney Fees . filed by WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC. The Rai Plaintiffs are directed to pay WB Imico $415,252.11 in attorneys' fees and $11,038.79 in costs. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion (Dkt. No. 113 ), enter judgment, and close this case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 3/31/2017) (cf)
|
|
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: (75 in 1:09-cv-09611-PGG, 75 in 1:09-cv- 09611-PGG) MOTION to Vacate (63) Memorandum & Opinion, MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC, (73 in 1:09-cv-09610-PGG, 73 in 1:09-cv-09610-PGG) MOTION to Vacate (62) Memorandum & Opinion, MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC, (75 in 1:09-cv-09612-PGG, 75 in 1:09-cv-09612-PGG) MOTION to Vacate (64) Memorandum & Opinion, MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by WB IMICO Lexin gton Fee, LLC, (63 in 1:09-cv-09586-PGG, 63 in 1:09-cv-09586-PGG MOTION to Vacate. MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC, (76 in 1:09-cv-09609-PGG, 76 in 1:09-cv-09609-PGG) MOTION to Vacate (63) Memorandum & Opinion, MOTIO N for Summary Judgment filed by WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC. Defendant's motion to vacate is granted to the extent that this Court's March 2012 decision holds that the purchase agreements at issue violate 15 U.S.C. 1703(d)(1), and that Pl aintiffs Haskell Limited Inc., Jessica Benhamou, Garrett Bauer, and Marilyn Ezzes are entitled to summary judgment. The Rais are granted summary judgment for the reasons set forth above. Defendant's motion for summary judgment on its breach of c ontract counterclaim is denied as to the Rais (09 Civ. 9586, Dkt. No. 63) but granted as to Haskell Limited Inc. (09 Civ. 9609, Dkt. No. 76), Benhamou (09 Civ. 9610, Dkt. No. 73), Bauer (09 Civ. 9611, Dkt. No. 75), and Ezzes (09 Civ. 9612, Dkt. No. 7 5). The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions. The following briefing schedule will apply to any application for damages, attorneys' fees, and costs by the Rais: The Rai Plaintiffs' motion is due on October 11, 2013. Def endant's opposition is due on October 25, 2013. The Rai Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due on November 1, 2013. The following briefing schedule will apply to any application for attorneys' fees by Defendant with respect to Plaintiffs Haskell, Benhamou, Bauer, and Ezzes: Defendant's motion is due on October 11, 2013. Plaintiffs' opposition is due on October 25, 2013. Defendant's reply, if any, is due on November 1, 2013. (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 9/27/2013) (rsh)
|
|
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED, and Defendant's motions for summary judgment are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions: (09 Civ. 9586(PGG) Dkt. Nos. 38, 46; 09 Civ. 9609 (PGG) Dkt. Nos. 44, 56; 09 Civ. 9610(PGG) Dkt. Nos. 43, 55; 09 Civ. 961l(PGG) Dkt. Nos. 42, 54; 09 Civ. 9612(PGG) Dkt. Nos. 45, 57) (Signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe on 3/19/2012) (ft)
|
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.
