Margulis v. Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc.
| Max Margulis |
| Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc. and Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc. doing business as Grand Crowne Resorts |
| 4:2014cv01131 |
| June 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| John A Ross |
| Commerce ICC Rates, Etc. |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1337 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2017. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 24 MOTION for Ruling on to Delay Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by Plaintiff Max Margulis. (Dashtaki, Cyrus) |
| Filing 23 MOTION to Certify Class Renewed by Plaintiff Max Margulis. (Dashtaki, Cyrus) |
| Filing 22 MOTION to Strike Defendant's Offer of Judgment by Plaintiff Max Margulis. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Dashtaki, Cyrus) |
Filing 21
AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Second Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order (Doc. #20 ) is GRANTED, in part.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Case Management Order issued September 3, 2014 (Doc. #12 ) is amended as follows: see order for full details.( In Court Hearing set for 12/15/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12N before District Judge John A. Ross.). Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 4/2/15. (JWD)
|
| Filing 20 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct #12 Case Management Order, Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order by Plaintiff Max Margulis. (Dashtaki, Cyrus) |
|
Filing 19
ORDER denying #18 Motion to Amend/Correct Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/26/15. (LGK)
|
| Filing 18 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct #12 Case Management Order, Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order by Plaintiff Max Margulis. (Dashtaki, Cyrus) |
|
Filing 17
JOINT STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/22/14. (JWD)
|
| Filing 16 MOTION for Protective Order Stipulated by Defendant Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Attachment Stipulated Protective Order)(Wooten, Daniel) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is set for a telephone conference with counsel on Thursday, December 18, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/16/14. (JWD)
|
|
Filing 14
Docket Text ORDER: Re: #13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Joseph C. Sullivan. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100) by Defendant Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/2/14. (JWD)
|
| Receipt: $ 100.00, receipt number #4644045582 PRO HAC VICE on behalf of Joseph C. Sullivan. (MRC) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Joseph C. Sullivan. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $100) by Defendant Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing)(JWD) |
|
Filing 12
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER This case is assigned to Track: 2 Motion to Join Parties due by 5/25/2015. Discovery Completion due by 7/24/2015. Pretrial Conference set for 11/20/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12N before District Judge John A. Ross.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/3/14. (JWD)
|
|
Filing 11
Docket Text ORDER: The Rule 16 conference in this case is re-set to Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Please note that this is a time change only. The Court will initiate the Rule 16 conference call with the parties. SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/2/14. (JWD)
|
| Filing 10 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiff Max Margulis. . (Dashtaki, Cyrus) |
|
Filing 9
RULE 16 ORDER This case is assigned to Track: PTRACK 2 - STANDARD Joint Scheduling Plan due by 8/27/2014. Rule 16 Conference set for 9/3/2014 10:30 AM in Chambers before District Judge John A. Ross.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/22/14. (LGK)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification #7 is DENIED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification #6 is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/22/14. (JWD)
|
| Filing 7 Consent MOTION to Stay Proceedings on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by Defendant Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc.. (Wooten, Daniel) |
| Filing 6 SUPPLEMENTAL Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification by Defendant Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc.. (Wooten, Daniel) |
| Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint by Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc..(Asberry, Brian) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendant Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc. Sent To: Plaintiff (Asberry, Brian) |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATION INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc... (DLT) |
| Filing 2 Petition (Removal) STATE PETITION. Received From: The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri, filed by Max Margulis.(DLT) (Main Document 2 replaced on 9/3/2014) (JWD). |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with receipt number 0865-4378071, in the amount of $400 Non-Jury Demand,, filed by Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Class Action Petition, #2 Form Disclosure of Corporate Interests Certificate, #3 Original Filing Form Original filing form, #4 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Asberry, Brian) |
| Case Opening Notification: ATTORNEY NEEDS TO FILE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL. Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge John A. Ross. (DLT) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
