J & G Investments, LLC et al v. Fineline Properties, Inc. et al, No. 5:2006cv02461 - Document 266 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
Court Description: Judgment Entry that for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order 265 filed contemporaneously with this Judgment Entry, Counts II, III, IV, IX, X, XI, XII and XIII of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 74 ) are dismissed with prejudice. SidneyRudick is dismissed without prejudice as a defendant in this case for failure to prosecute. The Court acknowledges that both Count VIII of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and the counterclaim of defe ndants Fineline Properties, Fineline Holdings, Robert Petry and Robert Brauning (Docket No. 129 ), have been voluntarily withdrawn by the parties. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted as to defendant Reskin's counterclaim (Docket No. 126 ), which is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to Counts VI and VII is granted as to liability but denied as to damages. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 9/22/2008. (M,De)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J & G Investments, LLC et al v. Fineline Properties, Inc. et al Doc. 266 DOWD, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION J & G Investments LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fineline Properties, Inc., et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:06 CV 2461 JUDGMENT ENTRY For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed contemporaneously with this Judgment Entry, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: Counts II, III, IV, IX, X, XI, XII and XIII of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 74) are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Sidney Rudick is dismissed without prejudice as a defendant in this case for failure to prosecute. The Court acknowledges that both Count VIII of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and the counterclaim of defendants Fineline Properties, Fineline Holdings, Robert Petry and Robert Brauning (Docket No. 129), have been voluntarily withdrawn by the parties. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to defendant Reskin’s counterclaim (Docket No. 126), which is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to Counts VI and VII is granted as to liability but denied as to damages. Dockets.Justia.com (5:06 CV 2461) This case will proceed to trial as scheduled on damages only with respect to Counts VI and VII. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 23, 2008 Date S/ David D. Dowd, Jr. David D. Dowd, Jr. U.S. District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
