Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

12-10674 - 4 MVR, LLC v. Warren W. Hill Construction Company et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
12-10674 - 4 MVR, LLC v. Warren W. Hill Construction Company et al
July 23, 2012
PDF | More
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - 4 MVR's motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED and its motion for trustee process, a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is DENIED. Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint is DENIED as moot. (Hourihan, Lisa)
June 24, 2015
PDF | More
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - the Court ALLOWS 4MVR's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the third-party claims, D. 120, and DENIES Hill's motion for leave to amend the third party complaint, D. 150. The Court also DENIES as moot Jacobsen's motion to intervene, D. 153. The Court DENIES 4MVR's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings with respect to affirmative defenses, D. 123. The Court DENIES Hill's motion to compel arbitration, D. 115.(Hourihan, Lisa)
June 26, 2015
PDF | More
Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell: ORDER entered. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND SANCTIONS (#167) granting in part and denying in part 167 Motion to Compel (Russo, Noreen)
June 26, 2015
PDF | More
Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell: ORDER entered. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN 4 MVR LLC AND DONALD BURNS AND JACOBSEN ARCHITECTURE LLC (#177) denying 177 Motion to Compel. (Russo, Noreen)
September 13, 2016
PDF | More
ncy. The Court DENIES 4 MVR's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill falsely represented that Hill Construction had secured financing and funding. The Court DENIES 4 MVR's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill's certification on Pay Applications amounted to a misrepresentation because Hill failed to incorporate the terms of the Contract between 4 MVR and Hill ConstructJudge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The various motions for leave to file reply briefs, D. 268; D. 275, are ALLOWED nunc pro tunc and those briefs, D. 268-1 and D. 275-1 were considered by the Court in the resolution of the pending motions.The motion for leave to file papers in excess of page limit, D. 274, ALLOWED nunc pro tunc. The Court DENIES Hill's motion to strike new allegations. D. 262. The Court DENIES Hill's motion to strike Schaedel's affidavit. D. 249. The Court DENIES Hill's motion to strike Schaedel's second affidavit. D. 303. The Court DENIES 4 MVR's motion to strike Lovett's affidavit. D. 288. The Court DENIES as moot Hill's motion to strike Burn's affidavit, except as to paragraph 40 which the Court does not strike. D. 259. The Court DENIES as moot 4 MVR's motion to strike Hill's affidavit. D. 295. The Court DENIES in part and ALLOWS in part 4 MVR's motion for summary judgment, D. 232 and D. 240, in the following manner: The Court ALLOWS 4 MVR's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill falsely misrepresented Hill Construction's insolveion into Hill Construction's subcontracts with the subcontractors. The Court DENIES 4 MVR's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill's certification on Pay Applications amounted to a misrepresentation because Hill Construction had not paid its subcontractors retainage reductions in the manner required by the Contract. The Court DENIES 4 MVR's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claims that Hills certification on Pay Applications amounted to a misrepresentation because Hill falsely reported the percentage of work completed on the Project. The Court DENIES 4 MVR's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek dismissal of certain of Hill's affirmative defenses.The Court DENIES in part and ALLOWS in part Hill's motion for summary judgment, D. 234, and Hill's cross motion for summary judgment, D. 276, in the following manner: The Court DENIES Hill's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill falsely misrepresented Hill Construction's insolvency.The Court ALLOWS Hill's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill falsely represented that Hill Construction had secured financing and funding. The Court ALLOWS Hill's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill's certification on Pay Applications amounted to a misrepresentation because Hill failed to incorporate the terms of the Contract between 4 MVR and Hill Construction into Hill Constructions subcontracts with the subcontractors. The Court DENIES Hill's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claim that Hill's certification on Pay Applications amounted to a misrepresentation because Hill Construction had not paid its subcontractors retainage reductions in the manner required by the Contract. The Court ALLOWS Hill's motions for summary judgment in so far as they seek judgment on 4 MVR's claims that Hill's certification on Pay Applications amounted to a misrepresentation because Hill falsely reported the percentage of work completed on the Project.Accordingly, this case may proceed to trial on 4 MVR's misrepresentation claim against Hill regarding only the retainage reductions; and 4 MVR's Chapter 93A claim limited to Hill's misrepresentation of Hill Construction's solvency and the retainage reductions. On or before September 27, 2016, 4 MVR and Hill shall indicate in a joint statement, not to exceed five (5) pages in total, whether they consent to a bench trial on these claims, a proposed date for such trial (before the end of this year) and the expected length of trial. (Hourihan, Lisa)
September 20, 2016
PDF | More
Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The Court notes several typographical errors in the reference to the parties in the Memorandum and Order previously entered at D. 310 Although the meaning of the rulings regarding same was clear from the context and would be apparent to the Court and the parties, the Court now enters a revised order correcting these errors.(Hourihan, Lisa)