Szulik et al v. TAG Virgin Islands, Inc. et al
| Matthew J. Szulik, Kaitlin Szulik Trust, Brendan Szulik Trust, Keenan Szulik Trust, Kyle M. Szulik and Raymond W. Szulik |
| TAG Virgin Islands, Inc., James S. Tagliaferri, Patricia Cornell and Barry B. Feiner |
| 1:2012cv01827 |
| March 13, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| P. Kevin Castel |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
240
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Considering all of the foregoing, the Court Orders as follows: The motion to withdraw is granted effective December 31, 2013 or the close of fact discovery, whichever is later; Ms. Cornell shall take immediate steps to either: ( a) secure a lawyer admitted to practice in this Court to represent her; or (b) prepare to represent herself; The Court does not anticipate extending the date for completion of fact discovery but will extend the date for completion of expert discovery from January 31, 2014 to February 28, 2014 but does not anticipate further extension of this date; and All parties to the action, including Ms. Cornell, shall appear in person or by counsel at the status conference scheduled for January 17, 2014 at 11 a.m. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 11/13/2013) (ja)
|
|
Filing
225
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER 201 . As this Court concluded in the Order, on their third attempt to plead their claims, plaintiffs failed "to explain how the nondisclosure or omission of the 'kickbacks' diminished the value of the IEAH investments and resulted in a loss," to "plainly allege[] why the 'kickback' scheme forecasted or caused plaintiffs' losses," and to "allege how or why the nondisclosure of the 'kickbacks ' 'concealed the circumstances that bear upon the loss suffered[.]'".... This was so even though the Court, as it was required to do on consideration of a motion to dismiss, "accept[ed] all factual allegations in the complain t as true and [drew] all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor.".... A motion for reconsideration should not be granted where a party merely seeks reconsideration of issues already decided. Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Because plaintiffs have failed to identify any clear error or manifest injustice in the Court's previous ruling, their motion for reconsideration must be denied. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/21/2013) (ja)
|
|
Filing
195
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion to Dismiss; denying 120 Motion to Dismiss. Tagliaferri's motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts X and is otherwise denied. Cornell's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 1 14) is granted as to Count X and is otherwise denied. Feiner's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 120) is denied. Feiner's motion to strike is denied without prejudice. Feiner's motion to stay discovery pending the determination of this motion is denied as moot. Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide Mr. Tagliaferri with copies of all unreported opinions cited herein within fourteen (14) days of this Memorandum and Order. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 8/21/2013) (ja)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' and TAG Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of New York; denying 20 TAG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss only as it pertains to personal jurisdiction and venue and denying their Motio n to Transfer Venue to the District of Connecticut; denying 26 Defendant Feiner's Motion to Dismiss only as it pertains to personal jurisdiction and venue and denies his 59 Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum in Opposition; and denying a s moot 60 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Reply. The court transfers Plaintiffs' entire case to the Southern District of New York. All pending motions not expressly granted or denied in this order remain pending, to be resolved by the United States Court for the Southern District of New York.Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/9/2012. (Sawyer, D.) [Transferred from North Carolina Eastern on 3/13/2012.]
|
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.
