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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

15-410 - Despres v. Moreno et al

Download Files


Document in Context
15-410 - Despres v. Moreno et al
November 17, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 10) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Counts one (fraud), two (negligent misrepresentation), and six (unjust enrichment) are dismissed. In addition, with respect to count three (declaratory judgment) plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege entitlement to 10% profit on all dealerships. Therefore, that aspect of count three is dismissed. All other claims remain pending. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/17/15. (LC,S)
November 21, 2016
PDF | More
fed and the Court rules thereon. The motion to exclude is GRANTED and plaintiff's request for a hearing is DENIED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/21/16. (LC,S)Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Plaintiff Gabriel Despres' Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 120) and Plaintiff Gabriel W. Despres's Motion (I) for Leave to Further Amend the Complaint to Add Allegations Concerning the Recent Sale of Dealerships and (II) to Compel Discovery Concerning the Same (Doc. 131) are GRANTED in PART and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's motions are GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint to include allegations of damages stemming from the sale of various dealerships. Plaintiff's motions are further GRANTED to the extent plaintiff seeks to conform the amended pleading to the Court's previous rulings. The request for leave to amend regarding the "guarantee," however, is DENIED. As set forth herein, the Court will address plaintiff's motion to compel, to the extent necessary, upon the filing of a supplemental motion after the summary judgment motion is fully brie
January 13, 2017
PDF | More
entitlement to annual incentives for the years prior to 2009, as well as his Prompt Payment Act claim related to those payments. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 1/13/17. (LC,S)Memorandum Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on all Claims (Doc. 135). This is a breach of contract action. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's claims based on his alleged entitlement to 10% of the net profits/proceeds from the sale of one or more dealerships. Defendants are further entitled to summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim. In addition, plaintiff cannot seek recovery for annual incentives for the years 2009 and beyond. Defendants' motion, however, is DENIED with respect to his claims related to