EastWest Bridge v. Technology Partners FZ LLC et al
| EastWest Bridge |
| Technology Partners FZ LLC, Al-Bah Tr Brokers and Baharkan Group |
| 3:2011cv02417 |
| September 16, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| Dallas |
| Sam A Lindsay |
| Contract: Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330 Breach of Contract |
| 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
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court rejects the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge (Doc. 47 ) and denies Plaintiff's Application (Doc. 33 ), including the request for a turnover order, appointment of a receiver, and award of attorney's fees. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/18/2019) (axm)
|
|
Filing
32
Order Accepting 31 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Related Non- Taxable Expenses Against Postjudgment Defendants Technology Partners FZ, LLC, and Baharkan Group. All other relief requested in the motion is denied. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/24/2016) (ykp)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Before the court is the Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Technology Partners FZ, LLC and Baharkan Group for Counts Numbers One and Two (Doc. 24 ), filed 10/30/2014. After careful consideration of the motio n, record, and applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part the Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Technology Partners FZ, LLC and Baharkan Group for Counts Numbers One and Two (Doc. 24 ). Further, as no amended motion fo r default judgment was filed with respect to Count Three by 7/1/2015, as directed by the court, the court dismisses without prejudice this claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. The court will issue a judgment by separate document pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/11/2015) (bdb)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 MOTION to Modify Default Judgment against Defendants Technology Partners FZ LLC and Baharkan Group or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial Regarding Count Three and Motion to Sever Count Th ree for Separate Trial. The Court directs the clerk to reopen this case. The deadline for EastWest Bridge to file an amended motion for default judgment on Counts One and Two is 10/31/2014. The deadline for EastWest Bridge to conduct additional discovery or investigate its claim under Count Three and file an amended motion for default as to this claim is 7/1/2015. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/29/2014) (jrr)
|
|
Filing
20
Memorandum Opinion and Order grants in part and denies in part 19 Motion for Default Judgment, filed by EastWest Bridge. Accordingly, the court hereby orders that default judgment be entered for Plaintiff against Technology Partners in th e amount of $466,500 damages and $50,119.09 prejudgment interest calculated at a rate of five percent per annum. Post judgment interest shall accrue on the total amount of $516,619.09 (damages plus prejudgment interest) at the applic able federal rate of.11 percent per annum from the date of this judgment until it is paid in full.* The court will issue a judgment by separate document pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/30/2013) (tla)
|
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 Texas Northern 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.
