Feder Kaszovitz LLP v. Rosen

Feder Kaszovitz LLP v. Rosen

Plaintiff:	Feder Kaszovitz LLP
Defendant:	Lee S. Rosen
Case Number:	1:2017cv02954
Filed:	April 24, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Jesse M. Furman
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 23, 2019	Filing 62 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 61 Report and Recommendation. ENDORSEMENT: No objections have been timely filed. The Magistrate Judge's Report is adopted as the decision of the Court. Clerk to enter judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $160,658, and to close case. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 4/22/2019) (mml) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
August 3, 2018	Filing 37 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED. The parties are directed to come up with a mechanism for addr essing the issue of damages for Rosen's breach. The parties are further directed to address the issue of Defendant's counterclaims. The parties should submit a joint briefing schedule by August 9, 2018. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 26. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 8/3/2018) (ft)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 23, 2019

Filing 62 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 61 Report and Recommendation. ENDORSEMENT: No objections have been timely filed. The Magistrate Judge's Report is adopted as the decision of the Court. Clerk to enter judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $160,658, and to close case. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 4/22/2019) (mml) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

August 3, 2018

Filing 37 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED. The parties are directed to come up with a mechanism for addr essing the issue of damages for Rosen's breach. The parties are further directed to address the issue of Defendant's counterclaims. The parties should submit a joint briefing schedule by August 9, 2018. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 26. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 8/3/2018) (ft)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Feder Kaszovitz LLP v. Rosen
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Feder Kaszovitz LLP
Represented By:	David J. Sack
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Lee S. Rosen
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?