Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc. v. Ferman Management Services Corporation et al
| Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc. |
| Ferman Management Services Corporation, Mosaic Interactive, LLC and Stephen B. Straske, II |
| 3:2007cv00880 |
| June 14, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Multnomah |
| Ancer L. Haggerty |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| 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
223
ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 133 is GRANTED in part as to (1) the First Cliam; (2) the Fourth Claim and (3) the Fifth Claim and is otherwise DENIED; Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 135 on the issue of liability on Count II of the Third Claim (Breach of Contract); Adopting Findings and Recommendation 217 . Signed on 6/8/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (ljl)
|
|
Filing
217
Findings & Recommendation: Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (docket # 135 ) should be GRANTED on the issue of liability on Count II of the Third Claim (Breach of Contract). Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (docket # 133 ) should be GRANTED in part as to: (1) the First Claim for a violation of 18 USC § 1030(a)(5)(A) (First Amended Complaint, 32); (2) the Fourth Claim for tortious interference with contract (id, 66-70); and (3) the Fifth Claim for tortious i nterference with prospective business relationships (id, 71-75), and should be DENIED in all other respects. As a result, the claims left for trial are: (1) First Claim for violations of 18 USC § 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) against all defendants; (2 ) Second Claim for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the OUTSA against all defendants; (3) Third Claim for breach of contract against Ferman, with damages only on Count II; and (4) Sixth Claim for trespass against all defendants.Objec tions to these Findings and Recommendations, if any, are due May 22, 2009. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge and go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then a r esponse is due within 10 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge and go under advisement. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 5/22/2009. (FILED UNDER SEAL- UNSEALED on 6/1/2009 per order #221) Signed on 5/5/2009 by Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart.(da) Modified on 6/1/2009 (da).
|
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 Oregon 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.
