Brentlor, Ltd. v. Schoenbach et al
Brentlor, Ltd. |
Lawrence H. Schoenbach and Lawrence H. Schoenbach, PLLC |
1:2013cv06697 |
September 23, 2013 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
Foley Square Office |
XX Out of U.S. |
John G. Koeltl |
Other Contract |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 251 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 243 MOTION to Vacate Judgment of April 27, 2017. filed by Lawrence H. Schoenbach, Lawrence H. Schoenbach, PLLC. The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, Schoenbach's motion for a stay of all post-judgment enforcement and to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the motion at docket number 243. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/4/17) (yv) |
Filing 201 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 189 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss filed by Lawrence H. Schoenbach, Lawrence H. Schoenbach, PLLC. In sum, the plaintiff had the capacity to sue at the commen cement of this litigation and - having been restored to the Irish Register of Companies such that it now enjoys normal corporate status - it retains that capacity now. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied. The Clerk is directed to close ECF No. 189. Trial will begin on April 17, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/24/2017) (cf) |
Filing 167 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 161 MOTION in Limine , or Alternatively, To Continue Trial Date. filed by Lawrence H. Schoenbach, Lawrence H. Schoenbach, PLLC. The Court has received the defendants' motion to limit the plaint iff's expert testimony or, in the alternative, to vacate the trial date. The motion to preclude is granted in part and denied in part. The motion for a continuance is denied. (As further set forth in this Order.) Because the bulk of Question One of the expert's testimony is well within the scope of the expert testimony about which the defendants were aware since September, 2016, the motion for a continuance, which was in any event in the alternative, is denied. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/3/2016) (cf) Modified on 12/5/2016 (cf). |
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.