PURSHE KAPLAN STERLING INVESTMENTS, INC. v. NEFF

E.D. Pennsylvania

PURSHE KAPLAN STERLING INVESTMENTS, INC. v. NEFF

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided September 9, 2020·No. 5:20-cv-00878·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________

PURSHE KAPLAN STERLING : INVESTMENTS, INC., JOHN PETER : PURCELL, KATHERINE FLOUTON, and : LISA LAFOND : Plaintiffs, : : v. : No. 5:20-cv-00878 : TONI CAIAZZO NEFF, : Defendant : __________________________________________

O R D E R AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2020, upon consideration of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 7, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The motion, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. Neff is precluded from continuing her FINRA arbitration during the pendency of this litigation and said preclusion will continue unless relief from this court is granted at a future date. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), and for the reasons stated in the Opinion, the Court exercises its discretion and waives the bond requirement for Plaintiffs. See Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 219 (3d Cir. 1991).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.__________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________

PURSHE KAPLAN STERLING : INVESTMENTS, INC., JOHN PETER : PURCELL, KATHERINE FLOUTON, and : LISA LAFOND : Plaintiffs, : : v. : No. 5:20-cv-00878 : TONI CAIAZZO NEFF, : Defendant : __________________________________________

O R D E R AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2020, upon consideration of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 7, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The motion, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. Neff is precluded from continuing her FINRA arbitration during the pendency of this litigation and said preclusion will continue unless relief from this court is granted at a future date. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), and for the reasons stated in the Opinion, the Court exercises its discretion and waives the bond requirement for Plaintiffs. See Temple Univ. v. White, 941 F.2d 201, 219 (3d Cir. 1991).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.__________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

PURSHE KAPLAN STERLING INVESTMENTS, INC. v. NEFF, (E.D. Pa. 2020).

Pincite

PURSHE KAPLAN STERLING INVESTMENTS, INC. v. NEFF (PURSHE KAPLAN STERLING INVESTMENTS, INC. v. NEFF) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.