Manhattan Review LLC et al v. Yun et al
||Manhattan Review LLC and Joern Meissner
||Tracy Yun, Manhattan Enterprise Group LLC, Christopher Kelly and Heather Simon
||January 6, 2016
||US District Court for the Southern District of New York
||Foley Square Office
||Lewis A. Kaplan
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||15 U.S.C. § 1051
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|July 17, 2017
ORDER for 79 Motion to Dismiss filed by Manhattan Enterprise Group LLC, 76 Motion to Dismiss filed by Tracy Yun, 93 Motion for Leave to File Document filed by Manhattan Review LLC, Joern Meissner, 81 Motion to Dismiss filed by Chris topher Kelly, 110 Report and Recommendations. The objections all are overruled. The motions to dismiss the second amended complaint [DI 76, 79, 81] all are granted in all respects. The motion for leave to amend [DI 93] is denied. The requests for attorneys' fees are denied without prejudice to motions for such relief provided any such motions are filed on or before July 31, 2017. SO ORDERED., (Motions due by 7/31/2017.) (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 7/15/17) (yv)
|April 10, 2017
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 79 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Manhattan Enterprise Group LLC; 76 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Tracy Yun; 93 MOTION for Leave to Fi le Third Amended Complaint filed by Manhattan Review LLC, Joern Meissner; 81 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Christopher Kelly. For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Compolaint (Docket nos. 76, 79, and 81) be granted and that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (Docket no. 93) be denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) and Rules 72 , 6(a), and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Such objection shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with extra copies delivered to the Chambers of the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, Room 2240, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, and to the Chambers of the undersigned, Room 1960, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review. (Objections to R&R due by 4/24/2017.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 4/10/2017) Copies Transmitted this Date By Chambers. (anc)
|October 26, 2016
ORDER adopting 57 Report and Recommendations, 37 Motion to Dismiss filed by Tracy Yun, 40 Motion to Dismiss filed by Manhattan Enterprise Group LLC, 43 Motion to Dismiss filed by Christopher Kelly. Each of the three defenda nts has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In a report and recommendation dated August 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV recommended that the motions be granted in part and denied in part. Each of the defendants has objected to s o much of the report as recommended that the motions be denied. The Court, which too declines to consider any matters outside the amended complaint save for those of which Judge Francis took judicial notice, has considered the objections but perce ives no error of fact or law. Accordingly, it adopts the report and recommendation. More specifically, the motions of defendants Yun and Manhattan Enterprise Group [DI 37, DI 40] are granted to the extent that claims 7 and 8 are dismissed and is denied in all other respects. The motion of defendant Kelly [DI 43] is granted to the extent that claims 6 through 8 and 11 are dismissed and is denied in all other respects. Plaintiffs, on or before November 14, 2016, may file a second amended complaint amplifying those allegations in claims 6 though 8, and only those allegations, that Magistrate Judge Francis found insufficient in those claims. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/26/2016) (mro)
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
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?