NORTH VALLEY GI MEDICAL GROUP, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Maryland.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 28, 2016.
October 28, 2016.
Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 80a-3
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 80a-3 Investment Company Act of 1940
Nature of Suit: 850 Securities / Commodities Source: PACER
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
North Valley GI Medical Group, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP.
North Valley GI Medical Group, Plaintiff, represented by Jenny L. Dixon, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.
Christopher Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, Jenny L. Dixon, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.
John Kernan, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, Jenny L. Dixon, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.
James Grugan, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, Jenny L. Dixon, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.
Karen Grugan, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, Jenny L. Dixon, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.
Joseph Lipovich, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, Jenny L. Dixon, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen J. Oddo, Robbins Arroyo LLP, pro hac vice.
Prudential Investments LLC, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey H. Genth, Kramon and Graham PA, Catherine V. Wigglesworth, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, David Adam Kotler, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Deborah Kemi Martin, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew L. Larrabee, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice & William Jacob Harrington, Kramon & Graham, P.A..
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.
On August 23, 2016, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 42) wherein it denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss, granted the Defendant's motion to strike the jury demand, denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply, and directed...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
