Prout v. Vladeck et al
Plaintiff: Alexander Prout
Defendant: Anne C Vladeck and Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C.
Case Number: 1:2018cv00260
Filed: January 11, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge: Jed S. Rakoff
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 144 OPINION re: [140 ]ORDER denying 118 Motion for Summary Judgment: In sum, the Court concludes that Prout has created a triable issue as to each element of his malpractice claim. For these reasons, the Court, in its Order of March 26, 2019, denied VRC's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 4/12/2019) (jwh)
September 26, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 96 OPINION AND ORDER re: 74 MOTION to Dismiss the Third-Party Complaint filed by Steven J. Kelly, 70 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss TP plaintiff's Complaint filed by Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP: In sum, VRC has failed to sta te a claim for contribution against Sanford Heisler or Kelly. Furthermore, based on the pleadings and Kelly's uncontested affidavit, the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Kelly. For the foregoing reasons, the third-party defen dants' motions to dismiss are granted, and the Third-Party Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the entries at docket numbers 70, 74, and 78. (Steven J. Kelly and Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP terminated.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/25/2018) (jwh)
June 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 44 OPINION AND ORDER re: 18 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel: In sum, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Prout's FMLA-based and SOX-based legal malpractice claims, but grants the motion with respect to Prout 9;s breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Court also dismisses Prout's Title-VII based legal malpractice claim without prejudice. Finally, the Court denies defendants' motion to disqualify Sanford Heisler without prejudice to the possibility of its being re-raised at later stages of this litigation. The parties are directed to jointly call chambers by no later than Tuesday, June 12 to discuss the setting of deadlines in the case management plan. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/10/2018) (jwh)
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: Prout v. Vladeck et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Alexander Prout
Represented By: Jeremy Heisler
Represented By: Russell Lasser Kornblith
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: Anne C Vladeck
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: Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C.
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?