History
  • No items yet
midpage
REID v. FINN
3:20-cv-07425
| D.N.J. | Oct 31, 2025
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 QURAISHI, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Mathew Finn (“Finn”) (ECF No. 130), Defendant Jeffrey Boley (“Boley”) (ECF No. 131), Defendant Daniel Marcinko (“Marcinko”) (ECF No. 132), and Defendant Eugene Marra (“Marra”, with Finn, Boley, and Marcinko, “Defendants”) (ECF No. 133). For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion,

IT IS on this 31st day of October 2025 , ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions (ECF Nos. 130, 131, 132, 133) are hereby

DENIED ; and it is further ORDERED that by November 14, 2025, the parties are to meet and confer and file a proposed a briefing schedule to address the issue of spoliation raised in Plaintiff Hassan Reid’s Opposition (ECF No. 134).

s/ Zahid N. Quraishi ZAHID N. QURAISHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case Details

Case Name: REID v. FINN
Court Name: District Court, D. New Jersey
Date Published: Oct 31, 2025
Docket Number: 3:20-cv-07425
Court Abbreviation: D.N.J.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Add Column
No results found

Notebook

Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.

What are you researching?

Are reduced-form regression models acceptable evidence of class-wide impact at the class certification stage?
If Delaware is a company's place of incorporation, is that enough to establish personal jurisdiction and venue in Delaware?
What is the meaning of "after the pleadings are closed" in rule 12c of the frcp? Do pleadings include motions to dismiss counterclaims? Preferred jurisdiction is MA District court, but would take anything from the 1st circuit.