MM Arizona Holdings, LLC v. Bonanno et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District MM Arizona Holdings, LLC v. Bonanno et al

MM Arizona Holdings, LLC v. Bonanno et al

Plaintiff:	MM Arizona Holdings, LLC
Defendant:	Allen D . Jenkins
Case Number:	2:2008cv05353
Filed:	September 17, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square - Suspense Office
Presiding Judge:	Colleen McMahon
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract

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
September 17, 2009	Filing 61 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT ALLEN D. JENKINS re: 51 Motion for Summary Judgment. MMAZ has sufficiently established a prima facie case for summary judgment on the Guaranty. In turn, the Bonannos have not made a showing that there are any genuine issues of material fact, nor have they shown that they should be entitled to conduct further discovery under Rule 56(f). For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for s ummary judgment against the Bonannos and the Estate of Tamera Jenkins is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed judgment within 5 days. Once judgment is entered as to the Bonannos and the Estate of Tamera Jenkins, the Clerk of the Court will place this action on the suspense calendar until Allen Jenkins' bankruptcy is concluded. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/17/09) (tro) Modified on 9/23/2009 (tro).

Date Filed

Document Text

September 17, 2009

Filing 61 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT ALLEN D. JENKINS re: 51 Motion for Summary Judgment. MMAZ has sufficiently established a prima facie case for summary judgment on the Guaranty. In turn, the Bonannos have not made a showing that there are any genuine issues of material fact, nor have they shown that they should be entitled to conduct further discovery under Rule 56(f). For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for s ummary judgment against the Bonannos and the Estate of Tamera Jenkins is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed judgment within 5 days. Once judgment is entered as to the Bonannos and the Estate of Tamera Jenkins, the Clerk of the Court will place this action on the suspense calendar until Allen Jenkins' bankruptcy is concluded. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/17/09) (tro) Modified on 9/23/2009 (tro).

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: MM Arizona Holdings, LLC v. Bonanno 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: MM Arizona Holdings, LLC
Represented By:	Christopher Francis Graham
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: Allen D . Jenkins
Represented By:	Mark Daniel Marderosian
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?