Empire Trust, LLC et al v. Cellura et al, No. 7:2024cv00859 - Document 77 (S.D.N.Y. 2024)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted. Because Dollinger is disqualified, the Court cannot act on Empire Trust's Rule 41 notice of dismissal. Empire Trust is free to refile that notice upon retaining new counsel. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion. (Dkt. No. 56.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 10/24/24) (yv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com et al and Counsel for Empire Trust LLC and Bruce Houle Counsel for Michael F. Ghiselli and Bruce Houle Counsel for ADMI Inc., SIR Inc., Baynon International Corp., and Michael F. Ghiselli Empire Trust, LLC et al v. Cellura et al Counsel for Defendants Doc. 77 See generally See generally See See, e.g. id id see also id See id. See, e.g id See See see See See See see id See See generally Streichert v. Town of Chester Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream Papyrus Tech. Corp. v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc. See Jose Luis Pelaez, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings LLC U.S. Football League v. Nat’l Football League Hempstead Video Gov’t of India v. Cook Indus., Inc. See Evans v. Artek Sys. Corp. Gov’t of India Capponi v. Murphy Streichert Twin Labs., Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness Revise Clothing, Inc. v. Joe’s Jeans Subsidiary, Inc. see also Jose Luis Pelaez Miness v. Ahuja Jose Luis Pelaez Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. Gartner, Inc. v. HCC Specialty Underwriters, Inc Hempstead Video, Inc. see also IBM Corp. v. Micro Focus (US), Inc apparent Victorinox AG v. The B & F Sys., Inc Hempstead Video, Inc. Victorinox AG v. B&F Sys., Inc. aff’d sub nom. as amended GSI Com. Sols., Inc. v. BabyCenter, L.L.C Glueck v. Jonathan Logan, Inc Id no risk See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Pataki see also Victorinox See Tarsin Mobile Inc., et al. v. Moyer et al. See generally See See See, e.g. See Troika Media Grp., Inc. v. Stephenson see also Ehrich v. Binghamton City Sch. Dist. Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington Co., Ore. v. Jelco See generally See id See Id See See Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc. apparent See Hempstead Video Inc. Gartner, Inc HLP Props., LLC v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York See id id See See id other See Cellura’s See Gartner, Inc see also GSI Com. Sols., Inc see Gartner, Inc see Intelli-Check, Inc. v. Tricom Card Techs., Inc See Anderson v. Nassau Cnty. Dep’t of Corr. Discotrade Ltd. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Int’l, Inc prior in the Moyer Action. See id United States v. Huawei Techs. Co Filippi v. Elmont Union Free Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. see also Painter v. Turing Pharms., LLC See Anderson See id any See Galloway v. Nassau County see also Merck Eprova AG v. ProThera, Inc three-year See Galloway Emle Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc was no See his own client see See individually See generally See Gartner, Inc See See See See See Canfield v. SS&C Techs. Holdings, Inc Pergament v. Ladak See could See see See Canfield Troika Media Grp. See id See id See See Canfield See See see THOIP v. Walt Disney Co Madison 92nd St. Assocs., LLC v. Marriott Int’l, Inc. aff’d sub nom. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP v. Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc see id See State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada
]]>
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.
