UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. DIANA SALVATORE et al v. FLEMING et al
Case Number: 2:2011cv01157
Filed: September 12, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office: Pittsburgh Office
Presiding Judge: Cynthia Reed Eddy
Nature of Suit: Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a))
Cause of Action: 31:3730 Qui Tam False Claims Act
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 25, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 84 MEMORANDUM ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Fleming's 37 Motion to Dismiss and Strike the Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant Fleming shall file a responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint on or before 4/16/15. It is further ORDERED that 69 Report and Recommendation is adopted as the Opinion of the Court, as modified by this Order. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 3/25/15. (bdb)
December 12, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 57 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting 45 Motion to Set Aside Default; granting 51 Motion to Set Aside Default. Dixie Realty shall file its proposed Answer, Defenses and Crossclaims within 7 days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 12/12/2014. (bap)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. DIANA SALVATORE et al v. FLEMING et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?