The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust et al v. Holmes
Plaintiff: The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust
Defendant: Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes
Counter Defendant: David C. Armstrong
Case Number: 3:2022cv00375
Filed: August 19, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: Craig S Denney
Referring Judge: Anne R Traum
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 32 RESPONSE to #20 Motion to Strike, by Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. Replies due by 10/24/2022. (Pyper, Mark)
October 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 31 MOTION to Amend #9 Notice (Other) by Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. Responses due by 10/31/2022. (Pyper, Mark) (answer)
October 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 30 REPLY to Response to #6 Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiffs David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust, Counter Defendants David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust. (Stephenson, John)
October 12, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 29 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Virtual Motion Hearing held on 10/12/2022 before Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. Crtrm Administrator: Karen Walker; Pla Counsel: John Stephenson; Def Counsel: Mark Pyper and Bradley Slighting; Court Reporter: Liberty Court Recorder; Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.; Recording start and end times: 10:04:59 a.m. - 10:19:37 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Disclose "Ghost-Lawyer" and to Stay Pending Such Disclosure (ECF No. #5 ) is moot, and the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. The Court admonishes Mr. Pyper that going forward he must comply with all Federal and Local Rules or sanctions will be imposed. The Court refers the parties to the Court's Standing Civil Order (ECF No. #4 ) if a discovery dispute arises and the parties are at an impasse. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
October 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER approving ECF No. #12 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice (ECF No. #26 Errata) by Attorney Mark B. Pyper for Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes and approving Designation of Local Counsel Bradley Slighting. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 10/11/2022. Any Attorney not yet registered with the Court's e-filng system shall register on the PACER website #www.pacer.gov (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) Modified on 10/11/2022 to create link to ECF No. #26 (HKL).
October 10, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 27 RESPONSE to #6 Motion to Dismiss by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. Replies due by 10/17/2022. (Slighting, Bradley)
October 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ERRATA to #12 Motion for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition, by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes.. (Slighting, Bradley)
October 5, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 25 Joint STATUS REPORT by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes.. (Slighting, Bradley)
October 3, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER granting ECF No. #23 Stipulation : Response to ECF No. #6 Motion to Dismiss due by 10/10/2022. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 10/3/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
September 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 23 Second STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Second Request) Stipulation to Extend Deadline To Respond To Motion To Strike/Dismiss re #6 Motion to Dismiss, #15 Order on Stipulation,,, by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. (Slighting, Bradley) (extend) (sumjgm)
September 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 22 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 9/28/2022. By Deputy Clerk: Karen Walker.A virtual Motion Hearing is set for Wednesday, October 12, 2022, at 10:00 A.M. in Reno Courtroom 2 before Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. The hearing will be conducted by Zoom Video Conference. The parties are directed to contact the courtroom administrator, Karen Walker, at (775) 686-5918 or Karen_Walker@nvd.uscourts.gov, by Friday, October 7, 2022, to provide the e-mail address of all counsel who will be attending the hearing. The following Zoom Video Conference Instructions shall be adhered to as follows:Instructions and zoom invite to the scheduled hearing will be sent via e-mail at least ONE (1) day prior to the hearing to the participants email provided to the Court.1. Log on to the Zoom five (5) minutes prior to the hearing time. 2. Mute your sound prior to entering the hearing.3. Do not talk over one another. 4. State your name prior to speaking for the record. 5. Do not have others in the video screen or moving in the background. 6. No recording of the hearing. 7. No forwarding of any video conference invitations. 8. Unauthorized users on the video conference will be removed. Members of the public may access and listen to the hearing by calling 1-888-557-8511, at least 5 minutes before the scheduled hearing time. The access code is 3599743 and the pass code is 101222. Telephonic participants must mute their telephone after identifying themselves to the courtroom administrator. Telephonic participants must not place their telephone on hold during the hearing.Reminder: Please take notice that no one or entity or organization, including but not limited to counsel, counsel's agents or staff, the Defendant, law enforcement agents/officers, and members of the public, who participate in or listen to this proceeding may NOT record it in any manner. Any individual, entity or organization that records this proceeding without written authorization of the Court will be subject to civil and/or criminal contempt penalties by this Court.The court will address Plaintiffs' Motion to Disclose "Ghost-Lawyer" and to Stay Pending Such Disclosure (ECF No. #5 ) and any related briefing. IT IS SO ORDERED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
September 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 21 SUPPLEMENT to #9 Notice (Other), #13 Errata Defendant's Statement Regarding Late Filing by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. (Slighting, Bradley)
September 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MOTION to Strike #9 Notice (Other) by Plaintiffs David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust, Counter Defendants David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust. Responses due by 10/11/2022. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Stephenson, John) (answer)
September 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 19 REPLY to Response to #5 Motion, by Plaintiffs David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust, Counter Defendants David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Stephenson, John)
September 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER granting ECF No. #17 Stipulation for extension of time (first request). The deadline to file the joint status report is extended to Wednesday, October 5, 2022. The joint status report shall set forth the status of this action, including a statement of action required to be taken by this court. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/22/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 17 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (First Request) To File Joint Status Report by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. (Slighting, Bradley) (extend) (presiding)
September 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 16 RESPONSE to #5 Motion, by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. Replies due by 9/27/2022. (Slighting, Bradley)
September 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER APPROVING ECF No. #14 Stipulation : A response to Armstrong's motion (ECF No. #5 ) will be due on September 20, 2022. A response to Armstrong's second motion (ECF No. #6 ) will be due on September 28, 2022. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/19/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
September 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (First Request) re #6 Motion to Dismiss, #5 Motion, by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. (Slighting, Bradley) (extend) (sumjgm)
September 15, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ERRATA to #9 Notice (Other), #1 Petition for Removal, by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. (Slighting, Bradley)
September 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MOTION/VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Mark B. Pyper, Esq. and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Bradley S. Slighting, Esq. (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number ANVDC-7049094) by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. (Slighting, Bradley)
September 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 11 NOTICE: Attorney Action Required to #9 Notice (Other). Attorney Bradley Slighting advised to review LR IC 2-2 (h) re Errata. Make the necessary corrections to your #9 Notice Other and refile your document using the event Errata and link the document to #9 Notice Other and #1 Petition. (no image attached) (LE)
September 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 STATEMENT REGARDING REMOVAL by Counter Claimant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes, Defendant Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes.. (Slighting, Bradley)
September 13, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 NOTICE of Removal by Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes.. (Slighting, Bradley)
September 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 SUPPLEMENT to #5 Motion, to Disclose Ghost Lawyer - Proof of Service in Response to Order [#7] by Plaintiffs David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust, Counter Defendants David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust (Stephenson, John)
September 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER re: #5 Plaintiffs' Motion to Order Defendant to Disclose her Ghost Lawyer and Stay Proceedings Until Such Disclosure. There does not seem be a proof of service indicating that the motion was served on the Defendant. Plaintiffs shall file a Certificate of Service within five (5) days of the date of this order reflecting that service of the Motion (ECF No. #5 ) has been effected on the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney on 9/7/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
August 31, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss by Plaintiffs David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust, Counter Defendants David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust. Responses due by 9/14/2022. (Stephenson, John)
August 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 MOTION to Disclose "Ghost-Lawyer" and to Stay Pending Such Disclosure re #1 Petition for Removal, by Plaintiffs David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust, Counter Defendants David C. Armstrong, The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust. Responses due by 9/5/2022. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Stephenson, John) (misc) (pleading)
August 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 CIVIL STANDING ORDER of U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
August 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable District Judge Anne R. Traum on 8/22/2022. Statement regarding removed action is due by 9/6/2022. Joint Status Report regarding removed action is due by 9/21/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
August 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Case randomly assigned to District Judge Anne R. Traum and Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. (WJ)
August 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 RECEIPT of Payment: $ 402.00, receipt number NVRNO5633 Civil Filing Fee. (no image attached) (CJD)
August 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 1 PETITION FOR REMOVAL from 2nd Judicial District Court for Washoe County, NV, Case Number CV22-01205, (Filing fee $ 402) by Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet - Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2 Index of Filings, Ex 3 State Court Summons, #3 Exhibit 4 State Court Complaint, #4 Exhibit 5 State Court Answer and Counterclaim) (CJD)

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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust et al v. Holmes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: The R.J. Armstrong Living Trust
Represented By: John Neil Stephenson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Counter defendant: David C. Armstrong
Represented By: John Neil Stephenson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Susan Helen Armstrong Holmes
Represented By: Mark B. Pyper
Represented By: Bradley S Slighting
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?