Sectek, Incorporated v. Diamond
| Sectek, Incorporated |
| Jeanette S. Diamond |
| 1:2015cv01631 |
| December 8, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Alexandria Office |
| Fairfax |
| Gerald Bruce Lee |
| Michael S. Nachmanoff |
| 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
166
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER following a 6-day non jury trial, entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff SecTek on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and entering judgment on Count 4 in favor of Defendant Jeanette S. Diamond and against Plaintiff SecTec, Incorp orated. Additionally, the Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Jeanette S. Diamond on her counterclaim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Sec Tek, Incorporat ed against Defendant Jeanette S. Diamond on the claim for breach of contract related to indemnification under the SPA for the tax assessment, as stated in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint, in the amount of the Tax Damages, $774,382.26 p lus and interest and penalties that accrue after November 7, 2016 on the Pre-Closing Taxes, and prejudgment interest on any amounts paid by Plaintiff toward the Pre-Closing Taxes from the date of such payments; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entere d in favor of Plaintiff Sec Tek and against Defendant Jeanette S. Diamond on the claim of breach of contract related to the Texas Lawsuit, as stated in Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint, with an award to Plaintiff for damages for Count Two in the amount of $8,845.02 plus additional attorneys' fees and collection costs, which continue to accrue; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff SecTek, Incorporated and against Defendant Jeanette S. Diamond on the cl aim of fraud in the inducement as stated in Count Three of the Second Amended Complaint, with an award to Plaintiff for damages on Count Three in the amount of $719,780.00 plus prejudgment interest from the Closing Date, but no award for punitiv e damages due to absence of malice; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Jeanette S. Diamond and against Plaintiff SecTek, Incorporated on the claim of constructive fraud in the inducement as stated in Count Four of the Seco nd Amended Complaint; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Sec Tek, Incorporated and against Defendant Jeanette S. Diamond on the claim for breach of contract relating to indemnification under the SPA for fraud, as stated in Count Five of the Second Amended Complaint, but not additional damages because the Court has already awarded damages for fraud in the inducement; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff SecTek and against Defendant Jeanette S. Diamond on the claim of securities fraud of Count Six of the Second Amended Complaint, but not additional damages; FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff SecTek's claim for specific performance for breach of contract as stated in Count Seven is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff SecTek's claim for specific performance for breach of contract as stated in Count Eight is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Jeanette S. Diamond and against Plaintiff SecTek, Incorporate d on the counterclaim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as stated in Amended Counterclaim One, with an award of damages to Defendant Diamond in the amount of $87,645.00. A separate Rule 58 Judgment Order will issue with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. /s/ by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 4/5/17. (tbul, )
|
|
Filing
132
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court sustains Diamond's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order on July 12, 2016, and grants her Privilege Waiver Motion for three reasons. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 10/06/2016. (see Order for further details)(dvanm, )
|
|
Filing
123
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Pltff SecTek's 70 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, denying Deft Diamond's 100 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and denying as moot Diamond's 85 Motion to Strike Alleged Facts and Evidence Supporting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. /s/ by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 8/19/16. (tbul, )
|
|
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER.ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 55 is GRANTED; that Defendant's Motion to Amend Counterclaim 61 is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff on 5/27/2016. (rban, )
|
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 Virginia Eastern 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: Sectek, Incorporated v. Diamond | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sectek, Incorporated | |
| Represented By: | Christopher Abram Jones |
| 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: Jeanette S. Diamond | |
| 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.
