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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-10065 - RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Link Development, LLC et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-10065 - RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Link Development, LLC et al
September 30, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: " For the foregoing reasons,1) In RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Link Development, LLC et al., 11-cv-11096, Plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP's motion for contempt (Docket No. 206) is ALLOWED;2) In RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Link Development, LLC et al., 14-cv-10065:a) the motion of defendant Link Development, LLC to dismiss the complaint (Docket No. 12) is DENIED; b) the motion of defendant Steven A. Ross, individually and as Trustee of the BD Lending Trust, to deem requests for admission by Link Development, LLC admitted (Docket No. 27) is DENIED; c) the motion of defendant Steven A. Ross, individually, for summary judgment on Counts III and V of the complaint (Docket No. 31) is DENIED; d) the motion of defendant Steven A. Ross, individually, for summary judgment on the Cross-Claims of Link Development, LLC (Docket No. 32) is DENIED; e) the motion of plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 39) is, with respect to Counts I and IV, DENIED, but is, with respect to Count II, ALLOWED; f) the motion of plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP to preclude use of evidence as a result of failure to comply with discovery obligations (Docket No. 42) is DENIED; g) the motion of defendant Link Development, LLC for partial summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1) against RFF Family Partnership (Docket No. 53) on Counts I and IV of RFF's complaint is ALLOWED; h) the motion of defendant Link Development, LLC for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1) against BD Lending Trust (Docket No. 56) is DENIED; and i) the joint motion of plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP and defendant Steven A. Ross, individually and as Trustee of the BD Lending Trust, to strike the untimely Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Link Development, LLC (Docket No. 61) is DENIED. Accordingly, Counts III and V of RFF's 2014 complaint remain pending, as do defendants cross-claims against each other. So ordered." Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-10968-NMG, 1:14-cv-10065-NMG(Moore, Kellyann)
December 23, 2014
PDF | More
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered granting 86 Emergency MOTION to Quash Trial Subpoenas by RFF Family Partnership, LP. "Accordingly, RFF'S motion to quash (Docket No. 86) is ALLOWED. So ordered." Please see order for details. (Moore, Kellyann)
March 31, 2015
PDF | More
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: MEMORANDUM & ORDER entered. The plaintiff's 166 Motion for Attorney Fees is ALLOWED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP is awarded $47,757 in attorneys' fees and costs. (Danieli, Chris)
June 15, 2016
PDF | More
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. re 195 Status Conference, held on 6/15/2016.(Caruso, Stephanie)
February 28, 2017
PDF | More
for slander of title against defendant Steven A. Ross as trustee of BD Lending Trust will commence on Monday, August 14, 2017 in Courtroom 4. So ordered.(Caruso, Stephanie)Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the forgoing reasons, 1) JUDGMENT is entered in favor of RFF Family Partnership, LP and against defendant Link Development, LLC, with respect to Count I of the Complaint;2) JUDGMENT is entered in favor of RFF Family Partnership, LP and against defendant Steven A. Ross as trustee of BD Lending Trust, with respect to Count I of the Complaint;3) JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Link Development, LLC and against plaintiff RFF Family Partnership, LP with respect to Count IV of the Complaint;4) the motion for summary judgment of Steven A. Ross as trustee of BD Lending Trust with respect to RFFs claim of slander of title (Docket No. 199) is DENIED and5) the motion for summary judgment of RFF Family Partnership, LP with respect to its claim of slander of title (Docket No. 204) is DENIED.A jury trial on Count IV of plaintiffs complaint