Bay Venture Elyria, LLC v. Advanced Plastics Reclaiming, LLC et al
| Bay Venture Elyria, LLC |
| Stephen Paspek, Broadview Group, LLC and Advanced Plastics Reclaiming, LLC |
| 1:2012cv02866 |
| November 16, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Lorain |
| Sara Lioi |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
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
51
Final Judgment Entry: Pursuant to this Court's December 13, 2013 Opinion (Doc. 37 ) granting Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Opinion (Doc. 48 ) granting Plaintiff's Motion for Post-judgment Interest, Atto rney Fees, and Costs, the Court enters Final Judgment as follows: 1. Final judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Bay Venture Elyria, LLC and against Defendants Advance Plastics Reclaiming, LLC, Broadview Group, LLC, and Sephen Paspek, jointly and severally, for $2,255,705.33 on the balance of the Note, $457,126.31 in prejudgment interest incurred through January 24, 2014, plus accrued and unpaid prejudgment interest from January 25, 2014 until the date of entry of final judgm ent at the rate of 5.0% per annum; 2. Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest at the statutory rate in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961; 3. Plaintiff's claims for attorney fees and costs are dismissed without prejudice; 4. This is a final appealable order. (Related Doc # 50 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 10/8/2014. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
48
Memorandum Opinion: Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 42 ) is granted, and plaintiff is entitled to recover $2,255,705.33 on the balance of the Note, $457,126.31 in prejudgment interest incurred through January 24, 2014, plus accrued and unpaid prejudgment interest from January 25, 2014 until the date of entry of final judgment at the rate of 5.0% per annum. Plaintiff is also entitled to postjudgment interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs. Plaintiff shall submit to the Court, by September 17, 2014, a fee petition, along with supporting documentation, setting forth its request for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Defendants shall submit a response, i f any, to plaintiff's petition by September 24, 2014. Plaintiff shall also, by September 17, 2014, submit a proposed final judgment entry for the Courts consideration. Count Three of the complaint is dismissed without prejduice. Judge Sara Lioi on 9/11/2014. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
37
Memorandum Opinion: Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 29 ) is granted, and judgment is entered in plaintiff's favor on Count One and Count Two of the complaint. As for Count Three (Fraud), the Court doubts wh ether this tort claim seeks damages for an injury that is separate and apart from the injuries resulting from the contractual breaches. Still, because plaintiff did not seek summary judgment on this claim, and the parties have not briefed the merits of the claim, the Court will withhold ruling on it for the present time. Instead, within 10 days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, plaintiff shall advise the Court, in writing, as to whether it plans to pursue the remaining fraud claim, and provide the Court with a proposed judgment entry setting forth precisely what plaintiff believes it is entitled to consistent with the Court's ruling on its summary judgment motion. Judge Sara Lioi on 12/13/2013. (S,He)
|
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 Ohio Northern 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.
