In Re: Savoy
| 2:2013mc00014 |
| March 6, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| David G Campbell |
| Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions |
| Civil Miscellaneous Case |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
1
ORDER That Grant Joseph Savoy SHALL SHOW CAUSE why his pro hac vice status in this Court should not be terminated or why he should not otherwise be disciplined. See LRCiv. 83.2(a), (e). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court set up a sep arate proceeding with a miscellaneous case number for the transfer and adjudication of this Order to Show Cause. FURTHER ORDERED that the miscellaneous case number be reassigned, by lot, to another Judge in the District of Arizona. The Clerk is direc ted that Judge G. Murray Snow shall not be selected to rule on the Order to Show Cause. FURTHER ORDERED that this Miscellaneous Case has been reassigned by random lot to the Honorable David G. Campbell. All future proceedings and papers submitted shall bear the following complete case number: MC-13-00014-PHX-DGC. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/6/13. (MAP)
|
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: In Re: Savoy | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
