Atlas Noble, LLC v. Krizman Enterprises et al
| Atlas Noble, LLC |
| Krizman Enterprises, Wayne Hammond Enterprises, Inc. and MKE Producing, Inc. |
| 5:2013cv01505 |
| July 11, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Akron Office |
| Tuscarawas |
| Sara Lioi |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
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
114
Memorandum Opinion and Order: In order to obtain a stay of enforcement proceedings, Atlas must post a supplemental supersedeas bond equal to the shortfall between the amount in the escrow account at the time of posting and the amount of the j udgment, plus the amount of pre-judgment interest, plus twelve (12) months of post-judgment interest, plus the $4,219.70 in costs awarded. Plaintiff's motion for stay of proceedings to enforce judgment (Doc. No. 108 ) is granted, provided plaintiff post the supersedeas bond described above. Judge Sara Lioi on 3/23/2016. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
96
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendants will not be permitted to proceed with their Counterclaim III. They bargained for, and received by order of this Court, liquidated damages in the form of the escrow amount, plus any accrued interest. Therefore, the Court intends to dismiss Counterclaim III, issue final judgment, and close this case. (Related Doc. No. 86 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 11/16/2015. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
85
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth above, as well as those set forth in defendants' response in opposition (Doc. No. 84 ), the Court finds no reason to alter or amend its ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgm ent issued on February 5, 2015. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to alter or amend (Doc. No. 82 ) is denied. Further, absent a showing of good cause within 10 days from the date of this order, the Court intends to dismiss defendants' Counterclaim III and enter final judgment consistent with the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on February 5, 2015 (Doc. No. 73 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 7/1/2015. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
81
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Since Croxton fails to establish the first and second prongs of the four-part test, the Court need not even consider the third and fourth prongs. The motion to intervene filed by Beau Croxton (Doc. No. 75 ) is denied. Judge Sara Lioi on 3/27/2015. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
73
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 59 ) is denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 58 ) is granted. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Cou nt I of the complaint and Counts I and II of their amended counterclaim. Specifically, defendants are entitled to have the Escrow Amount paid to them, plus any accrued interest, and to have judgment on these three claims entered in their favor agains t plaintiff. The ruling above does not resolve defendants' third counterclaim, which neither side's motion addresses. In that counterclaim, defendants seek an order that Atlas breached the PSA by terminating it before Closing, resulting in damages to defendants equal to the purchase price of $9,284,694.50, plus interest. In light of the Court's ruling and the remedies contained in Section 1.2 of the PSA for a failure to close the transaction, the Court questions whether defendants are entitled to proceed on this claim. Judge Sara Lioi on 2/5/2015. (P,J)
|
|
Filing
32
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Finding too many questions on the merits that preclude judgment on the pleadings at this early stage, plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 15 ) is denied. Defendants' motion for leave to amend the counterclaim (Doc. No. 21 ) is granted and defendants shall forthwith file the pleading that was attached to the motion. The case shall now proceed according to the Case Management Plan and Trial Order. (Doc. No. 18 .) Judge Sara Lioi on 3/20/2014. (P,J)
|
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.
