Carling v. Peters
Plaintiff: Francis Carling
Defendant: Kristan Peters
Case Number: 1:2010cv04573
Filed: June 11, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Unassigned
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 8, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 241 OPINION & ORDER re: 222 THIRD MOTION for Sanctions filed by Francis Carling. For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the Report in full, and concludes that this case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This dismissal is without prejudice to either party's right to pursue their claims in a court with proper jurisdiction. The Court also denies Carling's third motion for sanctions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 222 and to terminate all other motions in this case as moot. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/8/2013) (lmb) Modified on 3/8/2013 (lmb).
April 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 192 OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, for all the forgoing reasons, defendant's application to compel responses to her second set of interrogatories (Docket Item 159) is denied in all respects. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/24/2012) Copies Sent By Chambers. (cd)
March 30, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 184 OPINION AND ORDER: Carling's motion is granted to the extent that he seeks reimbursement for the cost of Peters' deposition transcript, and Peters' request for reimbursement of costs is also denied. Carling is directed to provide Peters with the billing invoices and/or receipts that set forth the cost of her deposition transcript. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 3/30/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ft)
August 19, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 178 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: that Carling produce the required documents no later than 9/2/2011. (Request for Production of Documents due by 9/2/2011.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 8/19/2011) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ft)
February 3, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 124 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant Kristan Peters has applied for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff Francis Carling's motions for sanctions (Docket Items 97, 106). The application is granted in part. In the interest of efficiency , I am consolidating the motions and granting defendant until February 17, 2011, to respond to both motions. This prejudices neither plaintiff nor defendant. I am reserving decision on whether to hold a hearing. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 2/3/2011) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jpo) Modified on 2/3/2011 (jpo).
January 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 96 DECISION AND AMENDED ORDER that the Court's Order dated 1/5/11 is amended to incorporate the discussions set forth above and the Memorandum Opinion and Order of Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman entered on 12/6/10 (Docket No. 80) is adopted in its e ntirety, and the motion of defendant Kristan Peters for a stay of this action entered on 12/15/10 (Docket No. 82) and the Emergency Motion filed by Peters on 1/4/11 objecting to the Order (Docket No. 89) are DENIED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 12/3/10) (cd)
December 13, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 81 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning defendant's job performance at each firm or office she has been employed or worked as a lawyer is granted. Plaintiff's applic ation to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning the reasons or circumstances of defendant's leaving each job she held as a lawyer is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning any settlement made between defendant and any law firm at which she was employed as an associate, partner or counsel, including but not limited to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all document s concerning any grievance filed against defendant for unprofessional conduct, before or after plaintiff's representation of defendant, is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning any motion for sanctions filed against defendant at any time - other than the sanctions motion in Wolters Kluwer is granted for the same reasons given in the preceding paragraph. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concern ing or evidencing any criticism expressed by any court or adversary of defendant's conduct as a lawyer is denied as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning defendan t's status as a present or former member of the Southern or Eastern Districts of New York or District of Connecticut is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning or arising from the sanctions p roceeding in the Wolters Kluwer case subsequent to the oral argument of defendant's Second Circuit appeal on December 2, 2008 -- including but not limited to decisions of courts, grievance committees or similar authorities concerning defendant - is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning the copy of the volumes of the Appendix on appeal utilized by plaintiff in his preparation for oral argument on defendant's Second Circuit appeal is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce a copy of the tape of the oral argument of defendant's Second Circuit appeal is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all records of telephone calls to and from defendant, plaintiff, and/or Collazo Carling & Mish LLP between July 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all non-privileged documents concerning communications bet ween defendant and any other person or firm (but excluding plaintiff) concerning plaintiff, defendant's disputes with plaintiff, this action, or the pending arbitration betweendefendant and Collazo Florentino & Keil LLP is granted. Plaintiff 9;s application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning bills rendered by counsel for defendant in any action or proceeding relating to, or arising from, the sanctions proceeding in the Wolters Kluwer case or defendant's disputes with Dorsey & Whitney, as well as all documents showing the amounts, if any, defendant paid in respect of each such bill, is granted. Plaintiff's application to compel defendant to produce all documents concerning any dispute about, adjustment of, or discount on, the bills referred to in request 13 isgranted. Defendant is directed to produce all of the aforementioned discovery requests so that plaintiff will receive them by December 15, 2010, at noon. (See OPINION as set forth) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/13/2010) Copies Sent By Chambers (lnl)
December 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 80 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Carling's motion to confirm the Orders of Arbitrator Scanlon dated May 17 and September 14, 2010 is granted; his application to vacate the October 25, 2010 Order of Arbitrator Rothstein is granted to the extent that Order permits the assertion of counterclaims against Carling in his individual capacity; Carling's application is denied to the extent it seeks to stay the arbitration of claims by or against CCM. To the extent my oral order of this morning granted the application to stay the arbitration of claims by or against CCM, it is vacated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/3/2010) Copies sent by Chambers (lnl)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Carling v. Peters
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Francis Carling
Represented By: Francis Carling
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: Kristan Peters
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.

Why Is My Information Online?