Kaplan v. Tatel
| David A. Kaplan |
| David S. Tatel |
| 7:2023cv05456 |
| June 27, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATIONAND ORDER FORDISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Parties to this action that pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any and all claims and causes of action asserted against either Party in the above-captioned action are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney's fees and costs. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this matter in light of the joint stipulation herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 7/14/2023) (ate)
|
| Filing 6 PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER. Document filed by David S. Tatel..(Silbert, Gregory) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - EVENT TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Gregory Silbert to RE-FILE Document #5 Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal. Use the event type Proposed Orders, Proposed Stipulation and Order. (km) |
| Filing 5 FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) David S. Tatel and without costs. Document filed by David S. Tatel. Proposed Order to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff...(Silbert, Gregory) Modified on 7/13/2023 (km). |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Gregory Stewart Silbert on behalf of David S. Tatel..(Silbert, Gregory) |
| Filing 2 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: David A. Kaplan consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by David A. Kaplan..(rdz) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against David S. Tatel. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number 394)Document filed by David A. Kaplan..(rdz) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to David S. Tatel..(rdz) |
| Case Designated ECF. (rdz) |
| Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (rdz) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Kaplan v. Tatel | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: David A. Kaplan | |
| 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: David S. Tatel | |
| Represented By: | Gregory Stewart Silbert |
| 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.
