Yumilicious Franchise LLC v. Barrie et al
| Yumilicious Franchise LLC |
| Matthew Barrie, Kelly Glynn, Why Not, LLC and Brian Glynn |
| Why Not, LLC, Matthew Barrie, Brian Glynn and Kelly Glynn |
| Yumilicious Franchise LLC |
| 3:2013cv04841 |
| December 11, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| Dallas |
| Sam A Lindsay |
| Franchise |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
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
74
ORDER Accepting 69 Amended Findings and Recommendations re: 58 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court overrules Defendants' objections, and Yumilicious Franchise, LLC, is entitled to and shall recover attorney's fees from Defendants. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/25/2016) (epm)
|
|
Filing
53
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons herein stated, Defendants' remaining counterclaim alleging violations of the Franchise Rule is hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for lack of a pr ivate right of action under the FTCA. Further, to the extent Defendants seek to assert this counterclaim as a DTPA violation, the court has previously dismissed Defendants' DTPA counterclaim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Yumilicious II, 2015 WL 1822877, at *5-6; Supplemental Order at 2. As required, a final judgment will issue separately pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 5/18/2015) (ndt)
|
|
Filing
48
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying as moot 19 MOTION for Partial Dismissal of Counterclaims; granting 35 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. The court directs Defendants to respond and file a brief to show cause why their remaining counter claim alleging misrepresentations and omissions in the Franchise Disclosure Document should not be dismissed either for lack of a private right of action, or for failure to allege the counterclaim with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This brief shall not exceed seven pages and must be filed on or before 5/4/2015. Yumilicious may file a reply not to exceed five pages on or before 5/11/2015. All remaining pretrial deadlines are hereby suspended pending further notice from the court. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/23/2015) (jrr)
|
|
Filing
47
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 26 Counter-Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Previous Order and Motion to Amend. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/22/2015) (jrr)
|
|
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, the court grants in part and denies in part Yumilicious's 8 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims but will allow Defendants to replead all of their counterclaims, except those based on breach of contract and alleged violations of the DTPA, FTC Act, and Business Opportunity Acts of Texas and South Carolina, which the court dismisses with prejudice. In light of the courts ruling as to Yumilicious's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, th e court denies as moot Yumilicious's Motion for a More Definite Statement. The court also grants Yumilicious's Motion to Strike Defendants' general denial but will allow Defendants to file an amended answer. Yumilicious's Motio n to Strike Defendants' jury demand is denied without prejudice. Accordingly, the court strikes Defendants' answer and orders Defendants to file an amended answer and counterclaims by 8/28/2014, that cure the deficiencies herein noted. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/14/2014) (tln)
|
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.
