1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. PHILLIPS
 

MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. PHILLIPS

No. 1:09-cv-1917-WSD.

MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CECIL M. PHILLIPS et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

January 13, 2012.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Manhattan Construction Company, Plaintiff, represented by Gary S. Freed , Thompson Hine LLP-GA.

Manhattan Construction Company, Plaintiff, represented by David N. Dreyer , Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry.

Cecil M. Phillips, Defendant, represented by Ryan Kelly McLemore , Cushing Morris Armbruster & Montgomery, LLP.

Cecil M. Phillips, Defendant, represented by Kirk M. McAlpin, Jr. , Cushing Morris Armbruster & Montgomery, LLP.

Braden Copeland, Defendant, represented by Keith Hasson , Keegan Federal & Associates.

Place Properties LP, Defendant, represented by Josie K. Nackers , Smith Gambrell & Russell-GA.

Place Properties LP, Defendant, represented by William W. Maycock , Smith Gambrell & Russell.

Place Properties LP, Defendant, represented by William Parker Sanders , Smith Gambrell & Russell.

Place Collegiate Properties Company, Defendant, represented by Josie K. Nackers , Smith Gambrell & Russell-GA.

Place Collegiate Properties Company, Defendant, represented by William W. Maycock , Smith Gambrell & Russell.

Place Collegiate Properties Company, Defendant, represented by William Parker Sanders , Smith Gambrell & Russell.

Alston & Bird LLP, Respondent, represented by William C. Humphreys, Jr. , Alston & Bird.

Place Collegiate Development, LLC, Movant, represented by John Anthony Christy , Schreeder Wheeler & Flint, LLP.

Place Collegiate Development, LLC, Movant, represented by Elizabeth Louise Fite , Kutak Rock-ATL.

Place Collegiate Development, LLC, Objector, represented by John Anthony Christy , Schreeder Wheeler & Flint, LLP.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Manhattan Construction Company's Motion for Reconsideration [250] of this Court's May 11, 2010, Order (the "May 11 Order") [198] denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [103]. Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement [518] its responses to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, and...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases