Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Cleary Josem
-
Order | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 03, 2024 THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND et al v. JACK PEARS & ASSOCIATES, LLC et al
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | Pennsylvania Eastern
Order ~Util - Add and Terminate Attorneys
ORDER THAT BERKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES P.C. IS HEREBY RELIEVED OF ITS REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT JACK PEARS & ASSOCIATES LLC IN THIS ACTION. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE KAREN S. MARSTON ON 5/3/24. 5/3/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh)
-
Order | Filed: April 30, 2024 | Entered: April 30, 2024 THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND et al
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | Pennsylvania Eastern
Stipulation and Order
STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE AN ANSWER, PLEAD, OR OTHERWISE MOVE IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINT SHALL BE EXTENDED UNTIL JUNE 30, 2024. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE KAI N. SCOTT ON 4/30/2024. 4/30/2024 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg)
-
Appeal | Filed: April 29, 2024 | Entered: April 29, 2024 FAKE et al v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
Other Statutes: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | Pennsylvania Eastern
USCA Order
ORDER of USCA THE FOREGOING APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION. ABSENT EXCEPTIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY HERE, OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO REVIEWING FINAL DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. THE ORDERS FROM WHICH APPELLANT SEEKS TO APPEAL ARE NOT FINAL ORDERS, AS THEY DID NOT END THE LITIGATION ON THE MERITS AND LEAVE NOTHING FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO DO BUT EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT. SEE S.B. V. KINDERCARE LEARNING CTRS., LLC, 815 F.3D 150, 152 (3D CIR. 2016) (CITATION OMITTED); SEE ALSO HILL V. CITY OF SCRANTON, 411 F.3D 118, 124 (3D CIR. 2005). TO THE CONTRARY, PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH STAYED, REMAIN ONGOING IN THE DISTRICT COURT. NOR ARE THE ORDERS IMMEDIATELY APPEALABLE UNDER THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE OR OTHERWISE. SEE SMITH-BEY V. PETSOCK, 741 F.2D 22, 26 (3D CIR. 1984); IN RE KELLY, 876 F.2D 14, 16 (3D CIR. 1989). NOTHING IN THIS ORDER PREVENTS APPELLANT FROM FILING A NEW NOTICE OF APPEAL ONCE THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERS A FINAL DECISION. IN LIGHT OF OUR DISPOSITION, APPELLANTS MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RULE 60(B) MOTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT ARE DENIED.(jaa, )
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login