Legal Opinion
Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. v. Porro
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided August 13, 2013No. Civil Action No. 11-cv-11124-GAOPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
O’TOOLE, District Judge.
After review of the motion papers, other relevant docket papers, the Report and Recommendation, the objection thereto, and the reply to the objection, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge. The motion of the defendants David Angueira and Swartz & Swartz, P.C. for judgment on the pleadings (dkt. no. 88) is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SWARTZ DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
June 3, 2013.
DEIN, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Follow…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Rodriguez-Ortiz v. Margo Caribe, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- Curran v. CousinsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- United States v. AllenCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
- CRIBERG v. RaymondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. v. PorroDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2014
- Saad v. American Diabetes Ass'nDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015
- Lozada v. MPCHDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
- ARSENAULT v. OTTODistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2022
- Ducat v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2021
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.