DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. IRON CITY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. et al
| DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY |
| IRON CITY CONSTRUCTORS, INC., IRON CITY CONSTRUCTORS, INC AS GENERAL PARTNER OF MV HOLDINGS, CHRISELLIE CORP., SUPERIOR SHEET METAL FABRICATORS, INC., MV HOLDINGS, VICTOR J. VELTRI, ELOISE M. VELTRI, MICHAEL E. CRUNY and CHRISTINE A. CRUNY |
| 2:2017cv01360 |
| October 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| David S. Cercone |
| 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
117
OPINION AND ORDER denying 112 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 12/8/2020. (bjl)
|
|
Filing
102
MEMORANDUM OPINION Developers' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted against Defendants in the amount of $1,954,182.07. Developers' Motion for Summary Judgment for reasonable attorneys' fees will be denied, without prejudic e. Developers may file a separate request for determination of reasonable attorneys' fees within ten (10) days. As per Developers' stipulation to the dismissal of its Count III, Unjust Enrichment Claim, Count III will be dismissed. The Ve ltris' Motion for Summary Judgment against Developers will be denied.The Veltris Motion for Summary Judgment on their Cross-claim against the Crunys will be granted in part and denied in part. The Motion will be denied as to the Veltris' C ross-claim against Michael Cruny, individually. The Motion will be granted as to the Veltris Cross-claim against Christine Cruny. Christine Cruny shall indemnify the judgment entered against the Veltris in this case. An appropriate order will follow. Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 10/28/2020. (bjl)
|
|
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 92 Motion to Amend. And Now this 9th day of July 2020, upon consideration of Veltris's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (ECF No. 92), Developers's Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 93), and for the foregoing reasons, Veltris's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer is denied. Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 7/9/2020. (bjl)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER AND OPINION Defendants, Veltris, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Veltris Motion to Dismiss, as to Count I, Breach of Contract, based upon Defendants, Veltris, assertion of a novati on, is denied. The Veltris Motion to Dismiss, as to Count III of the Complaint, Unjust Enrichment, is granted insofar as Developers do not sufficiently plead facts to support said claim. Accordingly, Count III is dismissed, without prejudice. Devel opers is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. Further, Defendants Motion for a More Definite Statement is granted. Any amended complaint should include averments that sufficiently address the legal status of MV Holdings and identifies any connection between MV Holdings and Victor Veltri.Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 11/30/2018. (bjl)
|
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 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.
