Guzik v. Lendit Conference, LLC et al
| Samuel S. Guzik |
| Lendit Conference, LLC and Dara S. Albright |
| 1:2016cv02257 |
| March 28, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| J. Paul Oetken |
| 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
298
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 282 MOTION to Alter Judgment re: 273 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, 274 Clerk's Judgment,, . filed by Samuel S Guzik. For the foregoing reasons, Guzik's motion to alter the judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial is DENIED. Albright's request for sanctions is also DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 282. So Ordered (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 5/20/2020) (js)
|
|
Filing
273
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Accordingly, the Court finds in favor of Guzik on Albright's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court finds that Guzik has failed to establish his claim for quantum meruit, and Albright has failed to establish her claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Judgment shall be entered accordingly, with no recovery by either party. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 7/25/2019) (js) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
210
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 198 MOTION to Unseal filed by Samuel S. Guzik. For the foregoing reasons, Guzik's motion to unseal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within thirty days, the parties are directed to redact the documents listed in Gu zik's Redacted Document Index (Dkt. No. 199-1) in accordance with this opinion and to file them on ECF. Should the parties confer and find themselves unable to agree on the proper redactions, they are directed to file a joint letter no longer th an five pages specifically identifying the precise words or sentences as to which there is a remaining dispute. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close the motion at Docket Number 198. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 11/16/2018) (ama)
|
|
Filing
204
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 190 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Reply of Dara S. Albright re Albright's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 187) addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from R. Joseph Decker dated December 18, 2017 filed by Samuel S. Guzik, 175 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dara S. Albright, 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Samuel S. Guzik. For the foregoing reasons, Guzik's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART. Specifically, Albrig ht's counterclaims for malpractice, tortious interference with contract, and breach of confidentiality are dismissed. In all other respects, both parties' motions for summary judgment are DENIED. The claims that remain for trial are (1) Guz ik's claim for quantum meruit and (2) Albright's counterclaims for (a) tortious interference with business relations, (b) defamation, and (c) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The parties shall appear for a conference on October 5, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. for the purpose of scheduling the trial and setting deadlines for pretrial filings. The conference will be held in Courtroom 706 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The Clerk of Court is di rected to close the motions at Docket Numbers 160, 175, and 190. SO ORDERED., ( Status Conference set for 10/5/2018 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 706, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge J. Paul Oetken.) (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 9/14/2018) (ama)
|
|
Filing
152
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dara S. Albright. For the foregoing reasons, Albright's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 62 and to lift t he stay, which was effectively terminated on August 10, 2016 (see Dkt. No. 25). The parties are directed to complete discovery in good faith and to submit a status update to the Court on or before October 6, 2017, addressing whether the parties intend to move for summary judgment on any other grounds or, if not, when the parties believe they will be ready for trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 8/21/2017) (ama)
|
|
Filing
39
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 37 LETTER MOTION for Conference re: 24 Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 16 addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Samuel S. Guzik dated October 18, 2016 filed by Samuel S. Guzik, 38 SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER MOTION for Conference re: 37 LETTER MOTION for Conference re: 24 Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 16 addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Samuel S. Guzik dated October 18, 2016. [Plaintiff's SUPPLEM filed by Samuel S. Guzik, [26 ] MOTION to Dismiss filed by Dara S. Albright. Because the Second Amended Complaint states a claim for quantum meruit, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendant shall file an answer to the Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of this order. Th e Court will schedule an initial pretrial conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 thereafter. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 26, 37, and 38. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 11/28/2016) (ama)
|
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.
