Standard Construction Company v. Okland Construction Company Incorporated et al
| Standard Construction Company Incorporated |
| Okland Construction Company Incorporated and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company |
| 2:2019cv04504 |
| June 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Douglas L Rayes |
| Contract: Miller Act |
| 40 U.S.C. ยง 270 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Standard Construction Company Incorporated: Rule 4 Waiver of Service of Summons. Waiver sent on 7/3/19 to Okland Construction Company, Inc. . (Roos, Robert) |
| Filing 8 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Standard Construction Company Incorporated. (Roos, Robert) |
Filing 7
ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. The parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff(s) serve a copy of this Order upon Defendant(s) and file a notice of service. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/20/2019. (MMO)
|
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 Summons) (KAH). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and this case is subject to that pilot. The key features and deadlines are set forth in the attached Notice which includes General Order 17-08. Also attached is a checklist for use by the parties. All parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the General Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the General Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the attached documents (Notice to Parties, including General Order 17-08 and MIDP Checklist) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (KAH) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTY OF DEFICIENCY RE: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Pursuant to FRCiv 7.1 and LRCiv 7.1.1 the attached Corporate Disclosure Statement form must be filed by all nongovernmental corporate parties with their first appearance. A supplemental statement must be filed upon any change in the information. In addition, if not already filed, the Corporate Disclosure Statement should be filed within 14 days. Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set as to Standard Construction Company Incorporated. (KAH) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-17066975. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-19-04504-PHX-DLR. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (KAH) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Standard Construction Company Incorporated. (Roos, Robert) (Attachments: #1 Summons)(KAH) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-17066975 filed by Standard Construction Company Incorporated. (Roos, Robert) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-3, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(KAH) |
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 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
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.
