COUNSEL CORPORATION (US) v. WASSERSON

Case Number: 2:2004cv03852
Filed: August 13, 2004
Court: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Office: Negotiable Instrument Office
Presiding Judge: CYNTHIA M. RUFE
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
March 31, 2010 55 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 3/31/10. 4/1/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(dp, )
March 31, 2010 56 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS DENIED; AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, AS OUTLINED HEREIN.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 3/31/10. 4/1/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED(dp, )
August 25, 2010 59 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 8/24/10. 8/25/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(dp, )
August 25, 2010 60 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER THAT PLAITNIFF'S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. FINAL JUDGEMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED IN A SUM CERTAIN AMOUNT OF $404,896.75, IN FAVOR OF WASSERSON, THE PREVAILING PARTY, AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNSEL CORPORATION, C2 GOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND ALAN SILBER AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 8/24/10. 8/25/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(dp, )

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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: COUNSEL CORPORATION (US) v. WASSERSON
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ 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.