MANORCARE OF EASTON PA LLC v. NAGY, No. 5:2013cv05957 - Document 135 (E.D. Pa. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX ATTORNEY IN FACT AND PRO SE' FEES (NO. 132) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 12/13/17. 12/13/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE'.(ky, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MANORCARE OF EASTON PA LLC v. NAGY Doc. 135 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MANORCARE OF EASTON PA LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH A. NAGY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5957 __________________________ THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH A. NAGY and JOSEPH EUGENE NAGY, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. MANORCARE OF EASTON PA LLC; KENNEDY, PC; NORTHAMPTON COUNTY; AETNA, INC.; DR. EDWARD CUMBO; DR. DILIP BERA; BRAKELEY PARK CENTER; NEW EASTWOOD CARE AND REHAB; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; DR. STEPHEN KSIAZEK; and ST. LUKE’S WARREN HOSPITAL, Counter-Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2017, upon review of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs’ Motions to Tax Attorney in Fact and Pro Se Fees, Costs, and Brief in Support (Docket No. 132), and all supporting and opposing papers, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
