Kearney v. JPC Equestrian Inc.
| Mark Edward Kearney |
| JPC Equestrian Inc. |
| 3:2011cv01419 |
| August 3, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Outside State |
| A. Richard Caputo |
| Martin C. Carlson |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
143
MEMORANDUM OPINION denyting 137 MOTION to Reconsider filed by Mark Edward Kearney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on March 6, 2015. (kjn)
|
|
Filing
133
MEMORANDUM OPINION re Cross MOTIONS for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on November 18, 2014. (kjn)
|
|
Filing
132
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 121 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Mark Edward Kearney. SEE MEMO FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 30, 2014. (kjn)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) 1) The Defendant's appeal of the order of Judge Carlson entered on October 23, 2013 72 is denied; and 2) The deadline for the filing of the second amended complaint, as well as any further pre-trial case management deadlines, are left to the sound discretion of Judge Carlson. Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 10/2/13. (ts)
|
|
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs motions for leave to amend his complaint (Docs. 65 , 67 , 68 .) are GRANTED as follows:1. Plaintiff shall be permitted to file a second amended complaint,in the form set forth in Document 5 7 on the docket in this case, inorder to include a claim for tortious interference with contract against Varun Sharma individually. 2. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil. Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 23, 2012. (kjn)
|
|
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM ORDER - Denying motions 56 , 57 and instructing Kearney tofile an amended complaint, if he wishes to do so, in accordance with the prior rulings of this Court on or before October 1, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 10, 2012. (kjn )
|
|
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 50 Motion for Joinder; granting in part and denying in part 51 Motion for Leave to File; adopting 55 Report and Recommendations. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)The Report and Recomm endation (Doc. 55) is ADOPTED.(2)Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to include claims for breach of contract and age discrimination is GRANTED. The motion to amend is otherwise DENIED in all respects.(3)Plaintiffs Motion to add Varun Sharma as a Defendant (Doc. 50) is DENIED.(4)The matter is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 8/30/12. (jam, )
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) is ADOPTED. (2)Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) will be GRANTED and all claims other than Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract set forth in paragraphs 1-4 of the Complaint will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (3) This matter is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Carlson. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/26/12. (jam, )
|
|
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT ISORDERED that Kearneys motion to add Varun Sharma, who is described as a resident of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, as a defendant in this action (Doc. 40 ); and Kearneys pleading styled as an amended complaint, which has been docketed as a motion to amend a complaint, (Doc. 41 ), are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing these documents in light of the report and recommendation filed in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on January 5, 2012. (kjn )
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 13 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Cause of Action is GRANTED. Claims against Dft Varun Sharma are DISMISSED; claims against Dft JPC Equestrian, Inc. are TRANSFERRED to United States Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 08/01/2011.(DAK)cc: COR,D,Jury Clerk [Transferred from Kentucky Eastern on 8/3/2011.]
|
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 Middle 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
| Search for this case: Kearney v. JPC Equestrian Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mark Edward Kearney | |
| 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: JPC Equestrian Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Thomas J. Campenni |
| Represented By: | Robert N. Gawlas, Jr. |
| Represented By: | Jerry N. Higgins |
| Represented By: | Cory S. Robins |
| 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.
