Zobel v. Contech Enterprises, Inc. et al
| Mark Zobel |
| Contech Enterprises, Inc., Mark Grambart, Cary Gregory, Allen Spigelman, James Heppell, John Zaplatynsky and Carol Burman |
| 2:2014cv02721 |
| December 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| UNION |
| Terence P Kemp |
| Edmund A Sargus |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 |
| 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
63
ORDER granting 62 Motion To Lift Stay of Proceedings Against Defendant Contech Enterprises, Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 11/22/2017. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
59
OPINION AND ORDER denying 45 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Lift the Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 03/20/2017. (dh1) Modified on 3/21/2017 (dh1).
|
|
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 Defendant's Motion to Stay. The proceedings are STAYED as to Contech. Signed by Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 03/25/2016. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
41
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Insufficient Service of Process. The Motion is granted as to Defendants Burman, Zaplatynsky, Heppell, and Spigelman, who are dismissed from this action. The Motion is denied as to Defendants Contech, Grambart and Gregory. Signed by Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 03/21/2016. (dh1)
|
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 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
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.
