Smith, et al v. Arthur Andersen LLP, et al

Arizona District Court
Case #: 2:01-cv-00218
Nature of Suit380 Torts - Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage
Cause28:1331 Fed. Question
Case Filed:Feb 05, 2001
Terminated:Jun 08, 2006
Cross Claimant
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Cross Defendant
BA Securities Incorporated
Cross Defendant
Bank of America
Cross Defendant
Bank of America NT and SA, BA Securities Incorporated
Cross Defendant
GE Capital Markets Group Incorporated
Cross Defendant
General Electric Capital Corporation
Defendant
Arthur Andersen LLP
Defendant
Bell Boyd & Lloyd
Defendant
Deutsche Banc Alex.Brown
Defendant
Deutsche Banc Securities Incorporated
Defendant
Mark W Stephens
Defendant
Merrill Lynch & Company Incorporated
Defendant
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Defendant
Morgan Stanley & Company Incorporated
Defendant
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Defendant
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Defendant
Saad J Nadhir
Defendant
Scott A Beck
Movant
Lawrence Beck
Movant
Susan Finley Beck
Movant
Thomas Beck
Plaintiff
BC Real Estate Investments Incorporated
Plaintiff
Gerald K Smith
Respondent
Ace Bermuda Insurance Limited
ThirdParty Defendant
BA Leasing and Capital Group
ThirdParty Defendant
BA Securities Incorporated
ThirdParty Defendant
Bank of America
ThirdParty Defendant
Bank of America Corporation
ThirdParty Defendant
Bank of America NT and SA, BA Securities Incorporated
ThirdParty Defendant
Bank of America, Illinois
ThirdParty Defendant
Capital Funding Incorporated
ThirdParty Defendant
GE Capital Markets Group Incorporated
ThirdParty Defendant
GECC Capital Markets Group Incorporated
ThirdParty Defendant
GECC Commercial Equipment Finance
ThirdParty Defendant
GECC Corporate Leasing and Syndication Group
ThirdParty Defendant
General Electric Capital Corporation
ThirdParty Defendant
Structured Finance Incorporated
ThirdParty Plaintiff
Mark W Stephens
ThirdParty Plaintiff
Peer Pedersen
ThirdParty Plaintiff
Saad J Nadhir
ThirdParty Plaintiff
Scott A Beck

GPO Nov 01 2005
IT IS ORDERED denying 1852 Motion to Amend/Correct, finding as moot 1853 Motion to Expedite, granting 1867 Motion for Hearing on Motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on the compromise and settlement reached by the Trustee and PricewaterhouseCoopers is set for Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 601, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Paul G Rosenblatt. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pretrial Conference is set to commence on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 601, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Paul G Rosenblatt.
GPO Dec 02 2005
ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No.1 Regarding:Plaintiff's Improper Assertion of Unpled Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim AgainstUnderwriters (Doc. 1620) is taken under advisement.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriters Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2 toPreclude: Parol Evidence Relating to Ambiguous Allocation of Duties to Underwriters'Purchase Agreements (Doc. 1622) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3 toPreclude: Reference to the Defendants as a Group or the Underwriters Using PejorativeTerms (Doc. 1627) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriters Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 4 toPreclude: Evidence that 1) Investors Suffered Any Harm or that Plaintiff is Seeking RecoveryBased on Any Such Harm; or 2) That Any Money Recovered in this Litigation May BeDistributed to Investors (Doc. 1628) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5 toPreclude: Evidence Relating to Settlement Agreements (Doc. 1629) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6 toPreclude: Evidence Relating to Amounts Offered or Paid in Connection with Securities ClassAction Settlements (Doc. 1630) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 7 toPreclude: Evidence or Argument Regarding Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Qwest, GlobalCrossing, Adelphia or Any Other Corporate Scandals (Doc. 1631) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 toPreclude: Written Expert Reports (Doc. 1632) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 9 toPreclude: Evidence or Argument Regarding Howell v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.(Doc. 1633) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 10Regarding: Precluding Plaintiff's Use of Sworn Statements as Hearsay Under Fed. R. Evid.802 (Doc. 1634) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 11 toPreclude: Parol Evidence Regarding Unambiguous Obligation in FAD Loan Agreements toRepay FAD Loans (Doc. 1635) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 12 toPreclude: Any Mention of Punitive Damages Until a Predicate Showing of RequiredElements and of Any Mention of Financial Worth of Defendants (Doc. 1636) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 13 toPreclude: Use of Deposition Testimony During Opening Statements (Doc. 1638) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 14 toPreclude: Plaintiff From Improperly Using Expert Witnesses as Fact Narrators (Doc. 1639)is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 15 toPreclude: Expert Testimony on Matters of Law and on State of Mind (Doc. 1640) isDENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 16 toPreclude: Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) Before theCourt Has Ruled on its Predicate Foundation (Doc. 1641) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 17 toPreclude: Evidence or Argument Before the Jury Regarding Prejudgment Interest (Doc.1642) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that the Underwriter Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 18 toPreclude: Evidence or Argument Regarding Litigation Against Paul Weiss Attorney MarkBelnick Arising From His Employment at Tyco International, Ltd. (Doc. 1643) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Daubert Motion to Preclude theTestimony of Cathy Krendl (Motion #1 - Doc. 1705) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Daubert Motion to Preclude theTestimony of Richard Breeden (Motion #2 - Doc. 1660) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Daubert Motion to Preclude Dr. AllenMichel's Expert Testimony on Damages (Motion #3 - Doc. 1703) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeArgument or Evidence of Damages Based on the Securities Class Action (Motion #4 - Doc.1653) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff'sExperts from Testifying as to Legal Conclusions (Motion #5 - Doc. 1699) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff'sExperts From Opining on State of Mind or Intent (Motion #6 - Doc. 1692) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude theTestimony of Richard Breeden (Motion #7 - Doc. 1646) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss' Motion in Limine to Exclude theTestimony of Anthony D. Wedo Regarding BCI's Alleged Control of the FADs (Motion #8 -Doc. 1655) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceor Argument Seeking to Impose Liability Based on Communications with the SEC ( Motion#9 - Doc. 1695) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude EvidenceRelated to the "Howell Decision" (Motion #10 - Doc. 1684) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude EvidenceRelated to Paul Weiss's Potential Conflict of Interest in Representing Boston Chicken andBank of America (Motion #11 - Doc. 1685) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceand Argument That This Is a Case on Behalf of Investors (Motion #12 - Doc. 1697) isDENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeArgument or Evidence of Damages From "Looting" or "Waste" (Motion #13 - Doc. 1698)is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude EvidenceThat This is a Case on Behalf of Creditors (Motion #14 - Doc. 1689) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Declare that NewYork Code of Professional Responsibility Governs the Conduct of Paul Weiss (Motion # 15 -Doc. 1637) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceof FAD Owner's State of Mind Concerning Their Undisclosed, Subjective Intent Not toRepay Loans (Motion #16 - Doc. 1615) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeArgument that Paul Weiss Knew the Implicit Rate (Motion #17 - Doc. 1702) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceor Argument Regarding Speculation About the Independent Directors' Actions (Motion #18 -Doc. 1624) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeEvidence, Examination, or Argument Regarding Mark Belnick's Employment at TYCO( Motion #19 - Doc. 1657) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeArguments and Evidence Appealing to Regional Bias (Motion #20 - Doc. 1618) isGRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Bar AnyDescriptions of Plaintiff as Court-Appointed or Appointed by a Federal Judge (Motion #21 -Doc. 1701) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceand Argument Related to the Notes of Messrs. Marcus and Weissmann (Motion #22 - Doc.1623) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeArgument or Evidence of Damages From "Looting" or "Waste" (Motion #13 - Doc. 1698)is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude EvidenceThat This is a Case on Behalf of Creditors (Motion #14 - Doc. 1689) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Declare that NewYork Code of Professional Responsibility Governs the Conduct of Paul Weiss (Motion # 15 -Doc. 1637) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceof FAD Owner's State of Mind Concerning Their Undisclosed, Subjective Intent Not toRepay Loans (Motion #16 - Doc. 1615) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeArgument that Paul Weiss Knew the Implicit Rate (Motion #17 - Doc. 1702) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceor Argument Regarding Speculation About the Independent Directors' Actions (Motion #18 -Doc. 1624) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeEvidence, Examination, or Argument Regarding Mark Belnick's Employment at TYCO( Motion #19 - Doc. 1657) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to PrecludeArguments and Evidence Appealing to Regional Bias (Motion #20 - Doc. 1618) isGRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Bar AnyDescriptions of Plaintiff as Court-Appointed or Appointed by a Federal Judge (Motion #21 - Doc. 1701) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidenceand Argument Related to the Notes of Messrs. Marcus and Weissmann (Motion #22 - Doc.1623) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 12/1/05. (NOTE: THIS IS PART ONE OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER)(REW, )
GPO Dec 02 2005
ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Limit the Use ofPlaintiff's Ex Parte Sworn Statements (Motion #23 - Doc. 1682) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Preclude Use ofDefendants' Experts' Deposition Testimony in Plaintiff's Case-in-Chief (Motion #24 - Doc.1649) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine Regarding thePresentation of Exhibits and Transcripts of Testimony to the Jury (Motion #25 - Doc. 1711)is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Bar CollectiveReferences Such as "The Professional Defendants" and to Bar Plaintiff From Referring toPaul Weiss in Disparaging or Pejorative Terms (Motion #26 - Doc. 1686) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Paul Weiss's Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiff FromReferring to Himself as "Trustee" (Motion #27 - Doc. 1700) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude EvidenceContradicting the Bankruptcy Court's Findings in Connection with Confirmation of BCI'sPlan, Including Any Evidence that the Sale of BCI's Assets to McDonald Corporation WasInsufficient or that the Settlement with the Banks was Improper (Doc. 1667) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude Defendants FromClaiming that Gerald K. Smith Took Action That Was Actually Taken By BCI, the Debtorin-Possession, Before Smith Was Appointed Trustee (Doc. 1668) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude Defendants fromArguing that the Trustee is Controlled by, or is in any way a Proxy for, the Banks (Doc.1669) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 to Preclude Use of MichaelJ. Jenkins' Deposition Testimony at Trial (Doc. 1670) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Preclude the DefendantsFrom Asserting that the Trustee is Pursuing "Non-Company" Claims Belonging to InvestorsIT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6 to Preclude EvidenceRegarding Gerald K. Smith and Lewis & Roca's ALAS Insurance Coverage (Doc. 1672) isGRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 7 to Preclude Defendants andTheir Experts from Testifying or Arguing that the Incurrence of Additional Debt by anInsolvent Corporation Does Not Harm the Corporation (Doc. 1673) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude the Testimonyof Daniel Fischel Regarding Deepening Insolvency (Doc. 1674) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 9 to Preclude Repetitive andCumulative SEC Standard of Care Testimony by Four Paul Weiss Expert Witnesses (Doc.1675) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 10 Precluding DefendantsFrom Arguing or Suggesting the Existence of Statutory Defenses (Including "Reliance" and"Due Diligence" Defenses) to the Trustee's Common Law Claims (Doc. 1676) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 11 to Preclude Testimony orArgument that the Trustee's Claims are Preempted by Federal Law (Doc. 1677) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 12 to Preclude ImproperReferences to the Trustee's Settlements or to Other Settlements of Claims Against Parties tothis Litigation (1678) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 13 to Preclude DefendantsFrom Mentioning this Lawsuit's Consolidation with the BCI Class Action and Any PotentialApplication of SLUSA (Doc. 1679) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 14 to Preclude EvidenceRegarding the Trustee's Fee Arrangement with Counsel (Doc. 1680) is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 15 to Preclude Any TestimonyThat the SEC or its Staff Approved or Signed Off on BCI's Disclosures (Doc. 1681) isDENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 16 to Preclude Argument orEvidence Regarding Any Standard of Control Different Than Rule 405, Rule 12b-2 and Rule1-02(g) (Doc. 1683) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 17 to Exclude IrrelevantEvidence of Defendant Saad Nadhir's Alleged Charitable Contributions (Doc. 1687) isGRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 18 to Exclude IrrelevantEvidence of Defendant Saad Nadhir's Claim That He Went Down With the Ship (Doc. 1688)is DENIED as moot.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Evidence ofNegligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in Andersen's Designation of Non-Partiesat Fault, and, Motion to Strike Andersen's Designation of Non-Parties at Fault Filed on6/18/02 (Doc. 1709) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 20 to Preclude Evidence ofNegligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in the Underwriter Defendants' Designationof Non-Parties At Fault Filed 6/18/02, and, Motion to Strike Underwriters' Designation ofNon Parties at Fault (1719) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 21 to Preclude Evidence ofNegligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in the Individual Defendants' (Nadhir's)Designation of Non-Parties At Fault Filed 6/18/02, and, Motion to Strike Nadhir'sDesignation of Non Parties at Fault (1710) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 22 to Preclude Evidence ofNegligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in Paul Weiss' Designation of Non-PartiesAt Fault Filed 12/23/02, and, Motion to Strike Paul Weiss' Designation of Non Parties atFault Filed 12/23/02 (1722) is DENIED.IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 23 to Preclude Evidenceof Negligence or Fault of the Non-Parties Identified in PricewaterhouseCoopers' Designationof Non-Parties at Fault Filed on 12/23/02 and Motion to Strike PricewaterhouseCoopers' Designation on 12/24/02 (Doc. 1723) is DENIED.or Creditors (1671) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 12/1/05. (NOTE: THIS IS PART TWO OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER; the same.pdf document is attached to this entry as docket #1898)(REW, )
GPO Dec 08 2005
ORDER granting 1904 Motion to Dismiss Party, this action shall be and is dismissed with prejudice against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC") ONLY. Each party shall bear its own costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction only for the limited purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement made between Pla and PwC and, if necessary, enforcing the terms of the Approval and Bar Order agreed to between Pla and PwC and entered by the Court on 11/29/05 . Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 12/7/05. (LSP)
GPO Jan 05 2006
ORDER granting 1922 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice of Arthur Andersen LLP filed by Gerald K Smith; this action shall be and is dismissed with prejudice against Andersen only. Each party shall bear his own costs; this Court shall retain jurisdiction only for the limited purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement made between Plaintiff and Andersen and, if necessary, enforcing the terms of the Approval and Bar Order agreed to between Plaintiff and Andersen and entered by this Court on the 30th day of December 2005. re: 1921 APPROVAL AND BAR ORDER, Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 1/5/06. (REW, )
GPO Feb 02 2006
ORDER granting 1939 Motion to Dismiss Parties with prejudice against Defendants Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc, Morgan Stanley & Co, Deutsche Banc Securities Inc. and Deutsche Banc Alex.Brown ; each party shall bear his or its own costs and attorneys' fees; this court shall retain jurisdiction only for the limited purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and enforcing the terms of the Approval and Bar Order agreed to between Plaintiff and these parties. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/1/06. (REW, )
GPO Feb 09 2006
STIPULATED JUDGMENT pursuant to Rule 54(b) in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Saad J Nadhir in the total sum of $30,000,000.00 under Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall satisfy this Judgment exclusively through collection and or execution against the Nadhir Insurers. This Judgment shall not be recorded in the public records of any state or a political subdivision of any state. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the settling parties for the limited purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement made between Plaintiff and Nadhir and enforcing the terms of this Stipulated Judgment. There being no just reason for delay in the entry of a final Judgment against Nadhir,on the terms and conditions described above, the Court hereby directs entry of Judgment in accordance with the foregoing. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/8/06. (REW, )
GPO Feb 09 2006
ORDER for Dismissal of Saad Nadhir with Prejudice; granting 1950 Joint Motion; this action, with the exception of Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint, as to which the Stipulated Judgment is being entered herein, shall be and is dismissed with prejudice against Nadhir only. Each party shall bear his own costs. This Court shall retain jurisdiction only for the limited purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement made between Plaintiff and Nadhir and enforcing the terms of the Approval and Bar Order agreed to between Plaintiff and Nadhir and the Stipulated Judgment entered herein; party Saad J Nadhir terminated . Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/8/06. (REW, )
GPO Feb 09 2006
ORDER; based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Stipulated Judgment proposed by Nadhir and the Trustee will be signed and entered on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 2/9/06. (REW, )
GPO Apr 05 2006
ORDER denying 1955 Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases and Transfer.Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 4/4/06. (TLJ)
GPO Jun 08 2006
ORDER. All parties have been terminated and all claims resolved, Clerk of Court shall close the case. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/6/06. (REW, )


Create an account to get the full docket for this case.