Ross Dress For Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLC et al
| Ross Dress For Less, Inc. |
| Makarios-Oregon, LLC and Walker Place, LLC |
| 3:2014cv01971 |
| December 9, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Dennis J. Hubel |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable |
| 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
459
ORDER - The Court awards Makarios an additional $1,570,020 in damages for expenses related to installing a second freight elevator, repairing the plumbing on the upper floors, and repairing the air conditioning on the third floor. The Co urt also awards Markarios $2,989,773 in reasonable attorney's fees, other professional and expert fees, and costs, incurred at the district court. Finally, the Court awards Makarios $381,303 for appellate fees and costs. These three aw ards total $4,941,096 in favor of Makarios and against Ross. The Court GRANTS Makarios's motion for attorney's fees (ECF 383 ) to the extent stated in this Order and DENIES Ross's motion for attorney's fees (ECF 388 ). Signed on 9/29/2023 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
354
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at Phase II - The Court makes the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated here. The Court separately will enter judgment in favor of Makarios-Oregon, LLC and against Ross Dress for Less, Inc. in the total amount of $2,931,829, consistent with these findings and conclusions. Signed on 1/8/2021 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
313
OPINION & ORDER: The Court grants in part and denies in part the pending motions in limine 299 and 304 and strikes the hearing scheduled for July 17, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. (ECF 312). Signed on 7/16/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (jp)
|
|
Filing
307
Opinion and Order - Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 282 ) is DENIED. Signed on 1/3/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
271
Opinion and Order - Ross' motion for summary judgment and alternative motion for leave to add parties (ECF 259 ) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Ross' motion for summary judgment against Makarios' supplemental counterclaims i s DENIED. Ross' alternative motion for leave to add Charles W. Calomiris, Katherine Calomiris Tompros, and Jenifer Calomiris as additional defendants is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. Unless Charles W. Calomiris, Katherine Calomiris Tompros, and Jenifer Calomiris all file with the Court not later than June 15, 2018, a written statement unambiguously, unconditionally, and irrevocably disclaiming any interest in personally seeking any recovery from Ross related to the Richmond Lease or the Richmond B uilding, Ross has leave to file, not sooner than June 18, 2018, a supplemental complaint adding Charles W. Calomiris, Katherine Calomiris Tompros, and Jenifer Calomiris as additional declaratory judgment defendants. Signed on 5/31/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
235
Opinion and Order - Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Completion of End-of-Lease Work Pursuant to the Failing and Richmond Leases (ECF 219 ) is DENIED. Walker Place, LLC's Motion in the Alternative for Appointment of Special Master (ECF 217 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed on 9/27/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
213
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Based on the evidence presented at the Phase I trial and the record in this case, the Court DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART the requests for declaratory relief of Ross, Makarios, and Walker Place. Although Ross's modified plans to separate and surrender thebuildings are insufficient to meet the requirements of the two leases at issue, Ross is not obligated to perform the full scope of work that Defendants demand. The Court retains jurisdiction to address in Phase II of these proceedings any matters that may still require resolution by the Court. Signed on 6/10/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
99
Opinion and Order - Each party's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Regarding Ross's obligations physically to separate the Failing Building and Richmond Building, Ross's motions for partial summary judgment against Defendan ts (Dkts. 58 - 59 ) are granted and Makarios's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 57 ), joined by Walker Place, is denied. Regarding Ross's obligation to restore the basements of the Failing Building and Richmond Building to their pre-1996 occupancy capacity, Ross's motions for partial summary judgment (Dkts. 58 - 59 ) are granted and Walker Place's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 55 ) and Makarios's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 57 ) a re denied. Regarding whether the relevant statutes of limitation bar Defendants' claims based on Ross's surrender obligations,Ross's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 58 ) is denied and Walker Place's motion for partial s ummary judgment against that affirmative defense (Dkt. 55 ), joined by Makarios, is granted. Regarding Ross's obligations to maintain areas not within the premises, Ross's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 58 ) is denied. Regardin g Ross's remaining affirmative defenses, Walker Place's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 55 ), joined in part by Makarios, is granted as to failure to state a claim, laches, estoppel, unclean hands, and prior breach of contract by breaching the implied duty of good faith; it is denied, however, as to Ross's affirmative defense of waiver. Signed on 3/25/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
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.
