Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Kane Pugh
-
Order | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 03, 2024 VENTO v. DOGAN et al
P.I.: Motor Vehicle | Pennsylvania Eastern
Order ~Util - Set Deadlines
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS AVIS RENT A CAR AND AVIS RENT A CAR D/B/A PUI HOLDINGS CORP. SHALL FILE THEIR DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS NO LATER THAN MAY 8, 2024 AND PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN MAY 10, 2024. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN F MURPHY ON 5/3/24. 5/3/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. *NOT MAILED TO COUNSEL AND UNREP. (jaa, ) Modified on 5/3/2024 (jaa, ).
-
Appeal | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 03, 2024 MAGGITTI v. HON. BRET M. BINDER et al
Civil Rights: Other | Pennsylvania Eastern
USCA Order
ORDER of USCA THAT THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION. THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS IS GENERALLY LIMITED TO REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. THE DISTRICT COURTS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SEAL WAS NOT A FINAL ORDER BECAUSE IT DID NOT RESOLVE THE CASE, WHICH REMAINS ONGOING IN THE DISTRICT COURT. SEE PAPOTTO V. HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO., 731 F.3D 265, 269 (3D CIR. 2013). NOR IS THE ORDER IMMEDIATELY APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE. SEE MOHAWK INDUS., INC. V. CARPENTER, 558 U.S. 100, 106-07 (2009); CF. REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES V. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. CORP., 949 F.2D 653, 658 N.4 (3D CIR. 1991).(jaa, )
-
Appeal | Filed: May 03, 2024 | Entered: May 03, 2024 MAGGITTI v. HON. BRET M. BINDER et al
Civil Rights: Other | Pennsylvania Eastern
USCA Order
ORDER of USCA RE: IN GENERAL, OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO REVIEWING FINAL ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS. SEE 28 U.S.C. § 1291. THE DISTRICT COURTS DISMISSAL ORDER ENTERED DECEMBER 1, 2023, DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FINAL ORDER, AS THAT DECISION DISMISSED APPELLANTS COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND SHE SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AN AMENDED PLEADING. SEE BORELLI V. CITY OF READING, 532 F.2D 950, 951-52 (3D CIR. 1976) (PER CURIAM) (EXPLAINING THAT A DISTRICT COURT ORDER THAT DISMISSES A COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FINAL ORDER UNLESS THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT AMEND OR DECLARES HIS INTENTION TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT). THE DISTRICT COURTS CONSOLIDATION ORDER WAS LIKEWISE NEITHER FINAL NOR IMMEDIATELY APPEALABLE. SEE BRACE V. ONEILL, 567 F.2D 237, 240 N.9 (3D CIR. 1977); IN RE REPETITIVE STRESS INJURY LITIG., 11 F.3D 368, 372 (2D CIR. 1993). ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. (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