Targum et al v. Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP et al
| Andrew Targum, Erika Targum, Andrew S. Targum, P.C., Andrew Scott Targum, P.C., Targum, Britton & Tolud, LLP and Irwin Seeman |
| Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP, Matthew G. Weber, Lorraine Weber, Joel Cooperman and Elda Solla |
| 1:2012cv06909 |
| September 12, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1961 |
| 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
130
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Citrin's motion for reconsideration of the November 19 Order is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this motion (Dkt. No. 126). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/25/2013) (cd)
|
|
Filing
125
OPINION AND ORDER re: 81 MOTION to Dismiss The Second Amended Complaint filed by Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP, 91 MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11 filed by Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP. For the foregoing reasons, Citrins' mot ion to dismiss is granted and its motion for sanctions is denied. Because Plaintiffs have amended their complaint twice and have not requested leave to amend again, this dismissal is with prejudice as to the RICO and CFAA claims. Plaintiffs may re-file their state law claims in state court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion and this case (Docket Nos. 81 and 91). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/19/2013) (cd)
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER terminating 30 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 35 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 37 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 39 Motion for Sanctions; terminating 43 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 58 Motion for Sanctions; granting 63 Motion t o Stay. In light of the liberal pleading amendment standard, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, the interests of judicial economy, and the Defendants' failure to comply with the undersigned's Individual Practices Rules by providing the necessary cert ifications, Plaintiffs request for permission to amend its Amended Complaint once more, in light of the arguments raised in Defendants' motions, is granted. Plaintiffs may file a final second amended complaint, providing a courtesy copy for Cham bers, by Monday, June 24, 2013. Defendants' motions to dismiss and for sanctions (docket entry numbers 30, 35, 37, 39, 43 and 58) are hereby terminated for purposes of the Courts docket, without prejudice to renewal as against Plaintiffs second amended complaint or, if no timely second amended complaint is filed, Defendants motions to dismiss and for sanctions may be reinstated and adjudicated as to the current Amended Complaint. No further opportunity to amend will be provided to the exten t Defendants motions to dismiss are granted. Citrin Coopermans motion for a stay is granted. Discovery is hereby stayed pending completion of the briefing of Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs second amended complaint. If Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint and Defendants decide not to file motions to dismiss and instead file Answers, the discovery stay will be lifted upon the filing of Defendants Answers. If Plaintiffs fail to file a timely second amended complaint, the stay will terminate on June 25, 2013. This Order terminates docket entry numbers 30, 35, 37, 39, 43, and 58 and it resolves docket entry number 63. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/20/2013) (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.
