Ronis v. Carmine's Broadway Feast, Inc. et al
| Ellen Libman Ronis |
| Carmine's Broadway Feast, Inc., Little Fish Corp., Times Square Barbeque, Inc. and Carmine's Atlantic City, LLC |
| Carmine's Broadway Feast, Inc., Little Fish Corp., Times Square Barbeque, Inc. and Carmine's Atlantic City, LLC |
| Ellen Libman Ronis |
| 1:2010cv03355 |
| April 21, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Thomas P. Griesa |
| Stockholders Suits |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| 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
203
OPINION. The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted. However, if Croland truly wishes to pursue the kind of contractual claims defined in the earlier opinion of the court, a further amended complaint which is truly concise and clearly d irected to the issue will be allowed. Such an amendment must be filed and served on or before December 21, 2012 or Croland's claims in intervention will be finally dismissed., ( Amended Pleadings due by 12/21/2012.) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/17/2012) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
151
OPINION re: 133 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Carmine's Broadway Feast, Inc., Times Square Barbeque, Inc., Little Fish Corp., Time Square Barbeque, Inc., Carmine's Atlantic City, LLC, Carmine's Broadway Feat, Inc., [121 ] MOTION for Summary Judgment against Defendants and Other Relief. filed by Ellen Libman Ronis. Accordingly, summary judgment must be denied as to these claims. The court similarly holds that summary judgment must be denied with respect to the remaining claims and counterclaims subject to the present motions. The parties applied various and confusing labels to the payments they made to each other. A trial will best illuminate the true nature of these transactions and their impact on the present action. Thus, the cross-motions for summary judgment are denied. This opinion resolves docket items numbers 121 and 133. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 10/10/2012) (pl) Modified on 10/10/2012 (pl).
|
|
Filing
50
OPINION re: 23 MOTION to Intervene (Partial Consent) filed by Gary Croland, 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment -Exhibit Volume 2 (Exhibits 25-49). MOTION for Summary Judgment -Exhibit Volume 2 (Exhibits 25-49). MOTION for Summa ry Judgment -Exhibit Volume 2 (Exhibits 25-49). MOTION for Summary Judgment -Exhibit Volume 2 (Exhibits 25-49) filed by Ellen Libman Ronis, 25 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Carmine's Broadway Feast, Inc., Ti mes Square Barbeque, Inc., Little Fish Corp., Carmine's Atlantic City, LLC, 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants against whom th ose claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants against who m those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants against w hom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants again st whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants aga inst whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants a gainst whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendan ts against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defend ants against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defe ndants against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective de fendants against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the MOTION for Summary Judgment (a)on the First, Second and Third Claims in the Complaint (the Complaint), determining that the respective defendants against whom those claims have been asserted breached shareholders agreements entered into between the filed by Ellen Libman Ronis, 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment -Exhibit Volume 1 (Exhibits 1-24). MOTION for Summary Judgment -Exhibit Volume 1 (Exhibits 1-24). MOTION for Summary Judgment -Exhibit Volume 1 (Exhibits 1-24). MOTION for Summary Judgment -Exhibit Volume 1 (Exhibits 1-24) filed by Ellen Libman Ronis. The court denies the parties' mot ions for partial summary judgment except that the court rules that the first three affirmative defenses are invalid. The motion by Gary Croland to intervene is granted. This opinion resolves document numbers 13, 19, 20, 23, and 25 on the docket. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 9/26/2011) (lmb) Modified on 9/26/2011 (lmb).
|
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.
