Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Livingston MRI, LLP

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Northern District Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Livingston MRI, LLP

Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Livingston MRI, LLP

Plaintiff:	Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc.
Defendant:	Livingston MRI, LLP
Case Number:	5:2009cv00932
Filed:	April 23, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Akron Office
County:	Summit
Presiding Judge:	Sara Lioi
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
June 11, 2010	Filing 42 Opinion and Order: Defendant's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is denied. While the Court finds that Defendant is delinquent in its payments under the Settlement Agreement, the Court trusts that Plaintiff will afford Defendant a reasonable period of time in which to cure the delinquency, while continuing to honor its obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Toward that end, the Court shall conduct a telephonic status conference on June 16, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss t he plan for putting the settlement back on track. Prior to the conference, the parties are encouraged to work together to reach a consensus as to how they will proceed. Moreover, because the Court finds that both sides contributed to the present dispute via a lack of attention to detail in the drafting of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs associated with defending Defendant's motion is also denied. Judge Sara Lioi on 6/11/2010. (P,J)
April 1, 2010	Filing 39 Opinion and Order finding that Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. (Related Doc # 29 ). Plaintiff shall have until April 16, 2010 to submit a petition setting forth in detail the attorney's fee s and costs incurred in preparing the motion to enforce. Plaintiff is advised that it will not be compensated for its preparation of its opposition to Defendant's motion to vacate inasmuch as much of this document is duplicative of its motion to enforce. Plaintiff is, therefore, cautioned to limit its petition to the fees and costs associated with the preparation of the motion to enforce. Defendant shall have until April 30, 2010 to file an opposition to the petition. Unless the Court finds the need to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the Court will thereafter rule based upon the parties' submissions. Judge Sara Lioi on 4/1/2010. (P,J)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 11, 2010

Filing 42 Opinion and Order: Defendant's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is denied. While the Court finds that Defendant is delinquent in its payments under the Settlement Agreement, the Court trusts that Plaintiff will afford Defendant a reasonable period of time in which to cure the delinquency, while continuing to honor its obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Toward that end, the Court shall conduct a telephonic status conference on June 16, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss t he plan for putting the settlement back on track. Prior to the conference, the parties are encouraged to work together to reach a consensus as to how they will proceed. Moreover, because the Court finds that both sides contributed to the present dispute via a lack of attention to detail in the drafting of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs associated with defending Defendant's motion is also denied. Judge Sara Lioi on 6/11/2010. (P,J)

April 1, 2010

Filing 39 Opinion and Order finding that Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. (Related Doc # 29 ). Plaintiff shall have until April 16, 2010 to submit a petition setting forth in detail the attorney's fee s and costs incurred in preparing the motion to enforce. Plaintiff is advised that it will not be compensated for its preparation of its opposition to Defendant's motion to vacate inasmuch as much of this document is duplicative of its motion to enforce. Plaintiff is, therefore, cautioned to limit its petition to the fees and costs associated with the preparation of the motion to enforce. Defendant shall have until April 30, 2010 to file an opposition to the petition. Unless the Court finds the need to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the Court will thereafter rule based upon the parties' submissions. Judge Sara Lioi on 4/1/2010. (P,J)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Livingston MRI, LLP
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc.
Represented By:	John B. Schomer
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: Livingston MRI, LLP
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?