6 results for 'judge:"Austin "'.
J. Austin grants the developers' motion to transfer to the Southern District of Florida. The investor says it funded the developer $17.5 million in exchange for an equity investment in underlying real estate investments and the developer breached its fiduciary duty. The developer has filed an appearance in another, similar case in Florida involving the investor, and has moved to quash a subpoena issued to it. The investor's primary corporate and registered offices are in the Southern District of Florida and the Florida defendants, who handled administrative services for the investor, are associated with the original funding to the developer.
Court: USDC South Carolina Aiken, Judge: Austin , Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 6:22cv4501, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Real Estate, Jurisdiction, Contract
J. Austin, of the District of South Carolina, grants the real estate investors' motion to transfer their own investors' suit against them to the Southern District of Florida. While this dispute relates to property in South Carolina, both parties do substantial business in Florida and other related suits are already being litigated in Florida.
Court: USDC Southern District of Florida, Judge: Austin, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 1:24cv21147, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fiduciary Duty, Venue, Contract
[Consolidated.] J. Austin denies the landfill's motion to dismiss. The residents claim gross negligence and recklessness against the landfill after its acceptance of additional tonnage of waste resulted in the release of noxious odors, as well as the physical intrusion of trash, hazardous waste, soiled diapers and other solid waste onto the residents' properties. Allegations are sufficient to establish a plausible claim for relief.
Court: USDC South Carolina Aiken, Judge: Austin, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv1417, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: Environment, Negligence
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Austin denies the city's motion to alter or amend judgment in the property owners' suit alleging breaches of contracts associated with redevelopment of a shopping center, along with the property owners' motion for attorney fees and costs. The city's contention that the property owners' agreement to sell to a third party did not constitute "valuable consideration" for the city's own agreement with the property owners because the third-party agreement preexisted the city's agreement fails, since there is no evidence in the record establishing that the property owners entered into any binding agreement to sell before signing their agreement with the city. The city's defense against the property owners' claims, however, was not without substantial justification, nor was its assertion of counterclaims.
Court: USDC South Carolina Aiken, Judge: Austin, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 7:20cv1305, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, Municipal Law, Contract