Bankley v. TransEnterix, Inc. et al.
| Ashok V. Bankley |
| TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and Joseph P. Slattery |
| 5:2016cv00313 |
| June 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Western Division Office |
| BEAUFORT |
| James C. Dever |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
106
JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this action is dismissed with prejudice with each side to bear its own fees and costs. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 10/6/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER granting 95 Motion for Discovery. The Court's Order for Discovery Plan dated May 19, 2017 (Dkt. No. 94) is VACATED; and All discovery and other proceedings in this action, including the completion of a FRCP 26() conference, the submiss ion of a FRCP 26(f) discovery plan, and the submission ofRule 26(a) initial disclosures, are STAYED during the pendency of Defendants', motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws (Dkt. Nos. 82, 84). Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 6/7/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER denying as moot 42 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The court will resolve defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint [D.E. 82, 84] in due course. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 1/5/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
