Given the absence of a public match, here are the top three probabilities for what Case No 7906256 actually is.
| Ruling | Date | Summary of Reasoning | |--------|------|----------------------| | Denial of Motion to Dismiss | 30 Apr 2024 | The court concluded that the complaint plausibly alleges a contract amendment. The Statute of Frauds is not fatal because the parties have partially performed (AlphaTech began accelerated development). | | Grant of Preliminary Injunction | 14 Mar 2026 | The court found a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the breach claim and a serious risk of irreparable harm (loss of source code). The balance of hardships favored the plaintiff, and the public interest is served by preserving the software for adjudication. | | Motions in Limine (pending) | – | The court will decide whether the defendant’s technical expert’s testimony on “impossibility” is admissible, given the plaintiff’s contrary expert analysis. |
No final judgment on liability or damages has been entered. case no 7906256 top
| Date | Event | |------|-------| | 15 Oct 2022 | AlphaTech and BetaLogistics enter a Master Services Agreement (MSA) – “the MSA” – for delivery of a custom logistics‑optimization platform (the “Platform”). | | 02 Feb 2023 | Parties execute a Supplemental Agreement (SA) (signed by both CEOs) that expands the scope: BetaLogistics will integrate the Platform with its proprietary fleet‑tracking hardware and provide a $5 million upfront payment. | | 08 Jun 2023 | During a “kick‑off” conference call, AlphaTech verbally agrees to accelerate the delivery timeline by three months in exchange for an additional $2 million. No written amendment is signed. | | 28 Aug 2023 | BetaLogistics fails to deliver the hardware integration on the accelerated schedule. AlphaTech alleges breach and files a Letter of Demand on 10 Sept 2023, demanding performance or payment of liquidated damages. | | 22 Nov 2023 | BetaLogistics replies with a Counter‑Notice, asserting that the oral acceleration amendment is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because the contract price exceeds $5,000, and claims AlphaTech misrepresented the platform’s scalability. | | 12 Jan 2024 | AlphaTech files Complaint (Case No. 7906256) in SDNY, alleging breach, fraud‑in‑the‑making, and seeking specific performance. | | 20 Mar 2024 | Defendant files Motion to Dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)) arguing lack of a binding agreement for the accelerated schedule and failure to state a fraud claim. | | 30 Apr 2024 | Court Denies the motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleges a contract (the MSA + SA) and that the oral amendment may be enforceable under the part performance doctrine. | | 15 Jan 2025 | Parties exchange Initial Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1). | | 02 Mar 2025 | Discovery Plan filed – 30 depositions, 250 document requests, 2 expert reports (software architecture and valuation). | | 04 Nov 2025 | Plaintiff serves Expert Report (valuation of lost profits). | | 18 Dec 2025 – 07 Jan 2026 | Defendant serves Expert Report (technical infeasibility of accelerated schedule). | | 03 Feb 2026 | Plaintiff files Motion for Preliminary Injunction to preserve the source code pending trial. | | 14 Mar 2026 | Court GRANTS preliminary injunction (Rule 65). | | 15 Apr 2026 – 25 Apr 2026 | Parties file Motions in Limine (to exclude certain expert testimony). | | 5 May 2026 | Deadline for ** dispositive motions** (summary judgment, judgment on the pleadings). | | 20 May 2026 | Pre‑trial conference (scheduled). |
Assessment: The irreparability argument supporting the preliminary injunction leans toward specific performance, but the economic feasibility of forcing delivery may be contested. The court may ultimately award monetary damages while retaining the injunction to prevent further code alteration. Given the absence of a public match, here
If you find a matching docket entry for 7906256, look for:
If the disposition says “Dismissed” or “Vacated” , the case no longer stands against you. | Date | Event | |------|-------| | 15
In search engine or database contexts, “top” likely means “top result” or “top of the document.” It is not part of the case number itself. If you saw “TOP” stamped on a pleading, it might refer to the “Top Index” of a multi‑volume case file.
Family court, juvenile court, and some probate cases are sealed by law. Numbers like 7906256 could be from a confidential docket. Only parties of record (or their attorneys) can access them.