Ray Legal Consulting Group v. DiJoseph, III et al
| Ray Legal Consulting Group |
| Arnold E. DiJoseph, III, Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., Stacey M. Gray, Stacey M.Gray, P.C., Arent Fox LLP, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, Inc. and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited |
| 1:2013cv06867 |
| September 26, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Katherine Polk Failla |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
105
OPINION AND ORDER re: 90 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., 92 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C.: For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/12/2016) (tn)
|
|
Filing
45
OPINION AND ORDER re: 31 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Stacey M. Gray, P.C., Stacey M. Gray, 25 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, Inc., Arent Fox LLP, 22 MOTIO N to Dismiss filed by Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C.: This lawsuit is in essence a dispute over attorneys' fees that should have been resolved long ago. Instead, the parties have precipitated its existence through multiple other lawsuits and an inexplicable resistance to reaching a resolution without court intervention. Considering that nearly all of the parties to this action, as well as the related actions, are attorneys, it is distressing to the Court that the present dispute has e scalated to its current posture. For the foregoing reasons, Arent Fox's and Deloitte's motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED in full; the Gray and DiJoseph Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with an economic advantage and/or business relation, civil conspiracy, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are GRANTED; the Gray and DiJoseph Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's claim f or tortious interference with a contract are DENIED; and Plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with an economic advantage and/or business relation, civil conspiracy, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and bre ach of fiduciary duty are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Entries 22, 25, and 31. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff, the Gray Defendants, and the DiJoseph Defendants shall appear for a pretrial conference on September 3, 2014, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, to discuss how this case will proceed. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 8/8/2014) (tn)
|
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.
