MOORE EYE CARE, P.C. et al v. SOFTCARE SOLUTIONS, INC. et al
| MOORE EYE CARE, P.C. and EYE SERVICES, MSO |
| SOFTCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., QHR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION BILLING, CORP. and WILLIAM DAGHER |
| 2:2015cv05290 |
| September 23, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Delaware |
| STEWART DALZELL |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
106
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT MTBC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; MOORE EYE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS DENIED AS TO COUNTS I-III OF MTBC'S COUNTERCLAIM AND GRANTED AS TO COUNT IV A ND V OF MTBC'S COUNTERCLAIM, WHICH ARE DISMISSED; AND CHARTCARE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. IT IS DENIED AS TO COUNT I OF MTBC'S CROSS-CLAIM AND GRANTED AS TO COUNT II OF MTBC'S CROSS-CLAIM, WHICH IS DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 3/7/19. 3/8/19 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER THAT MTBC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS CROSS-CLAIMS (DOC. NO. 50 ) IS DENIED AND THAT MTBC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ANSWER AND WITHDRAW ITS ADMISSIONS (DOC. NO. 55 ) IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 8/31/2017. 9/1/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (aeg)
|
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 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.
