SANFORD et al v. BRACEWELL LLP
Plaintiff: CRAIG SANFORD and MARY JO SANFORD
Defendant: BRACEWELL & GUILIANI, LLP
Case Number: 2:2013cv01205
Filed: March 6, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Philadelphia Office
County: Bucks
Presiding Judge: JOEL H. SLOMSKY
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER THAT THE COURT WILL WITHHOLD RULING ON DEFT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOC. NOS. 47, 68) & PLFFS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ARBITRATION ORDER NO. 1 (DOC. NO. 48). PLFFS SHALL HAVE 21 DAYS TO RETURN TO ARBITRATION & PAY THE REQUIRED FEES AS DE TERMINED BY THE ARBITRATION PANEL, INCLUDING THE DEPOSIT OF $2,500 FOR ARBITRATOR CRANE'S FEES. PLFFS MUST PAY THE INITIAL DEPOSIT OF $2,500 & ANY OTHER REQUIRED FEES ON OR BEFORE 7/18/2017, ETC. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL PLACE THIS CASE IN SUSPENSE PENDING NOTIFICATION BY DEFT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 6/27/17. 6/28/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )
March 20, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 38 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING ARBITRATION [#3] IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS GRANTED AS TO CRAIG SANFORD AND DENIED AS TO MARY JO SANFORD. WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, PLAINTI FF CRAIG SANFORD MAY FILE FOR ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER. IF PLAINTIFF CRAIG SANFORD DOES NOT DO SO WITHIN THE THIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD, HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT BRACEWELL & GUILIANI WILL BE DISMISSED. HE IS O RDERED TO NOTIFY THIS COURT ON THE RECORD WHETHER HE HAS PURSUED HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT BRACEWELL & GUILIANI IN ARBITRATION WITHIN THE THIRTY (30) DAY PERIOD. IF HE DOES FILE FOR ARBITRATION, HIS CLAIMS IN THIS CASE WILL BE STAYED PENDING THE O UTCOME OF ARBITRATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT BRACEWELL & GUILIANI SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT ONLY IN REGARD TO MARY JO SANFORD WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. THEREAFTER, A CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 16 OF THE FRCP WILL BE SCHEDULED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 3/20/14. 3/20/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
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: SANFORD et al v. BRACEWELL LLP
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CRAIG SANFORD
Represented By: CLIFFORD E. HAINES
Represented By: DANIELLE M. WEISS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MARY JO SANFORD
Represented By: CLIFFORD E. HAINES
Represented By: DANIELLE M. WEISS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: BRACEWELL & GUILIANI, LLP
Represented By: PETER C. BUCKLEY
Represented By: STEVEN M. SCHNEEBAUM
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?