Seychelles Organics Incorporated v. Rose
Seychelles Organics Incorporated |
John R Rose |
2:2011cv01746 |
September 6, 2011 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Phoenix Division Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Frederick J Martone |
Withdrawal |
28 U.S.C. ยง 0157 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 90 ORDER: accepting Report and Recommendation 86 and denying 82 motion for protective order. Plaintiff's request for reasonable attorneys is granted, such fees to be determined by Magistrate Judge Burns. See order for additional details. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 9/20/2016.(LMR) |
Filing 81 ORDER on Stipulation to Stay Subpoenas 80 . The terms of the stipulation do not require court approval. Post-judgment supplementary proceedings are to be assigned to a magistrate judge under LRCiv 72.1(b). Should they arise, the clerk is directed to assign post-judgment supplementary proceedings, including issues involving debtor examinations, to a magistrate judge. See order for additional details. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 1/29/2016.(LMR) |
Filing 73 ORDER denying 61 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 67 Renewed Application for Order to Show Cause. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/27/2015.(LMR) |
Filing 60 ORDER denying 53 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 7/8/2014.(LMR) |
Filing 44 ORDER granting 31 MOTION for a Finding of Contempt Against Defendant John Rose. Contempt Hearing set for 12/11/2013 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 506, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Frederick J Martone. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/4/13. (LAD) |
Filing 40 ORDER - Accordingly, it is ORDERED GRANTING Schneider & Onofry's Motion to Withdraw as counsel to Rose. (Doc. 33 ). All further notice to Rose shall be at the address in the motion. It is further ORDERED GRANTING Rose's Motion for an ext ension of time within which to file a Response to the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. (Doc. 34 ). Rose shall have to and including October 18, 2013 within which to file a Response to the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions (doc. 31 ). No further extensions shall be granted. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 10/2/13. (LAD) |
Filing 30 ORDER denying 26 Motion for Protective Order. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/20/13. (LAD) |
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 Arizona 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
Search for this case: Seychelles Organics Incorporated v. Rose | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: John R Rose | |
Represented By: | Jonathan B Frutkin |
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 ] |
Plaintiff: Seychelles Organics Incorporated | |
Represented By: | Melissa Ann Marcus |
Represented By: | Jonathan Marc Saffer |
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.