Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Hardin Kundla x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | New York Eastern
Motion Hearing Order on Motion to Compel Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Order on Motion to Stay
Minute Entry for Motion Hearing held on 8/31/26 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione: Hayes & Sinha for Plaintiffs; Tracy, Katz, Urber, Povelones, Hofherr, Albanese, O'Donnell, Myer & Berman for Defendants.
The MOTION to Stay Discovery by Bluestar Capital LLC 143 is denied at this time for the reasons discussed on the record. Plaintiffs' Letter Motion to Compel 153 is granted. Bluestar shall produce a corporate representative for deposition by September 30, 2026 and bank records related to all transactions with the Lighthouse entities. True Title shall produce HUD statements and the internal escrow ledger for all transactions with the Lighthouse entities. Defendant Donaldson shall produce any missing bank records for herself, Hidden Gems TC Services and Hidden Gems Ventures LLC or an affidavit stating that she does not have access to the missing records.
The First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer and or move by Investors Title Company 177 is granted. Defendant Investors Title Company shall Answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint by September 28, 2026.
Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to serve a copy of this Order and the attached Minute Entry upon any pro se defendants forthwith and file proof of such service on the docket. (Time Log: 2:15 - 4:30 via Cisco.)(JJT)
Consumer Credit | New York Southern
Order
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons stated on the record at the August 31, 2026 hearing, Volvo's motion to compel arbitration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 12. After the Court issued its ruling, both parties consented to individual conferences with the Court to discuss settlement. As part of those conversations, plaintiff made a new settlement demand which was communicated to counsel for defendant, who represente d that he would discuss the new demand with his client. Because of the upcoming holiday, defendant requested 14 days to respond. Within 14 days, defendant should respond to plaintiff's new settlement demand. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 8/31/2026) (ks)
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.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.