McClelland v. Longhitano
District Court, N.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM — DECISION AND ORDER
KAHN, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for remand. For the following reasons Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs originally filed the above captioned complaint against Defendants on November 23, 1998 in New York State Supreme Court in Ulster County. The heart of their complaint is that Anthony Longhitano and Frank Longhitano, the individual defendants, were improperly using corporate properties to secure financing for other projects without granting any interest to plaintiff McClelland. 1 Plaintiffs’ complaint…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. At&t, Michael Gilmartin and Richard StottsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Baylis v. Marriott Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Ahearn v. Charter Township of BloomfieldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- In Re Estate of TabasDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brian Koester and Kimberly Koester v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Jeffrey Bacon, Eric Millhollen, Kay Vannatta, and Ann HolleranDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
- Gary Ogaz v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.District Court, C.D. California · 2021
- Lucky U, LLC v. S&F Investments LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
- Shaw v. Daifuku North America Holding Co.District Court, E.D. California · 2021