Meskunas v. Auerbach, Esq et al
| Denise Meskunas, John A. Meskunas and Important Properties, LLC |
| Lee David Auerbach , Esq. and Lee David Auerbach, P.C. |
| 7:2017cv09129 |
| November 21, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Vincent L. Briccetti |
| 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
127
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 126 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Lee David Auerbach, Esq., Lee David Auerbach, P.C. against Denise Meskunas, John A. Meskunas. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 25, 2022, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 4/26/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
126
OPINION AND ORDER re: 115 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lee David Auerbach, Esq., Lee David Auerbach, P.C. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion (Doc. #115) and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 4/25/2022) (mml) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is granted. The Clerk is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motion (Docket Nos. 93 and 95). So ordered. Granting 93 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Discovery with respect to Plaintiffs& #039; Application that certain subpoenaed discovery shall remain confidential addressed to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy from Steven T. Halperin dated December 7, 2020. Document filed by Denise Meskunas, Important Properties, LLC, John A. Meskunas. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy on 12/30/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER. In order to facilitate the progress of pre-trial discovery of this litigation in a just, speedy and inexpensive manner, to ensure compliance with the case management plan, and to prevent the accumulation of unresolved discovery issues, the fol lowing procedures will be followed for the resolution of discovery disputes: The party objecting to disclosure, claiming an insufficient response to a discovery request or asserting a privilege bears the burden of coming forward by bringing the dispute to the attention of the Court as hereinafter set forth, and as further specified and set forth in this Order. So ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy on 10/15/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
36
OPINION AND ORDER re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Lee David Auerbach, Esq. Lee David Auerbach, P.C. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Denise Meskunas's legal malpractice claim a nd John and Denise Meskunas's claim for an accounting shall proceed. Important Properties's legal malpractice claim and claim for an accounting are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All other claims are DISMISSED. By March 5, 2019, defendants s hall file an answer to the amended complaint. The Clerk is directed to (i) terminate the motion (Doc. #24), and (ii) terminate plaintiff Important Properties, LLC. SO ORDERED. Lee David Auerbach, Esq. answer due 3/5/2019; Lee David Auerbach, P.C. answer due 3/5/2019. Important Properties, LLC terminated. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 2/19/2019) (mml)
|
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.
