Filed: Mar. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW , this 30th day of March 2015, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 26); Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 35); Defendants' Reply in Support of the Motion (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 39); the arguments of counsel at the hearings held on September 5, 2014 (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 42) and November 24, 2014 (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 49); Plaintiff's Suppl
Summary: ORDER JOEL H. SLOMSKY , District Judge . AND NOW , this 30th day of March 2015, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 26); Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 35); Defendants' Reply in Support of the Motion (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 39); the arguments of counsel at the hearings held on September 5, 2014 (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 42) and November 24, 2014 (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 49); Plaintiff's Supple..
More
ORDER
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 30th day of March 2015, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 26); Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 35); Defendants' Reply in Support of the Motion (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 39); the arguments of counsel at the hearings held on September 5, 2014 (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 42) and November 24, 2014 (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 49); Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum of Law Sur Oral Argument Re: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 45); Defendants' Post Hearing Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 46); and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 13-5198, Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED. Judgment in consolidated Civil Action No. 13-5198 is entered on the claims set forth in the Complaint in favor of Defendants Alan B. Epstein and Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. and against Plaintiff Robert M. Fishman.
2. Plaintiff Fishman's Motion to Stay Pending Adjudication of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED as moot.
