Moore v. Marksman Security Corporation
| Aaron Moore |
| Marksman Security Corporation |
| 2:2019cv05369 |
| October 10, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| John J Tuchi |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 25, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 10/2/2020. Dispositive motions due by 10/30/2020. (See attached Order for additional deadlines and details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 11/25/19. (JAMA)
|
| Filing 12 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge John J Tuchi: Scheduling Conference held on 11/25/2019. Deadlines discussed and entered. Order to follow. IT IS ORDERED setting an Order to Show Cause Hearing for 12/9/2019 at 9:30 AM, for Plaintiff to demonstrate why the Court should not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. APPEARANCES: Prose Plaintiff Aaron Moore Failed to Appear. Christopher Meister for Defendant. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.) Hearing held 3:00 PM to 3:05 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JAMA) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for (Two Month) Extension for Mandatory Initial Discovery by Aaron Moore. (LAD) (1 page) |
| Filing 10 Rule 26(f) Report for Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) filed by Defendant Marksman Security Corporation. (Meister, Christopher) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) filed by Defendant Marksman Security Corporation. (Meister, Christopher) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 11/25/2019 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 505, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge John J Tuchi. The parties shall submit their joint proposed case management plan not less than seven (7) days before the Scheduling Conference. (See attached Order for additional details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 10/21/19. (JAMA)
|
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint by Marksman Security Corporation.(Meister, Christopher) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and motions to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) are discouraged if the defect that would be the subject of the motion can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Motions to dismiss and motions to strike that do not contain the required certification are subject to striking on the Court's own motion. (See attached Order). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 10/11/19. (JAMA)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT re informational documents attached: (1) Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, (2) Federal Court Self-Service Clinic Flyer, (3) Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, and (4) Notice and Request re Electronic Noticing. (MCO) |
| Filing 4 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. (MCO) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-17506312. This case has been assigned to the Honorable John J Tuchi. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-19-5369-PHX-JJT. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (MCO) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Marksman Security Corporation. (Meister, Christopher) (MCO) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV 2019 012072. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-17506312 filed by Marksman Security Corporation. (Meister, Christopher) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit)(MCO) |
| ***STATE COURT RECORDS RECEIVED***SERVICE EXECUTED : Declaration of Service re: Summons/Complaint/Plaintiff's Certificate Compulsory Arbitration, Plaintiff's Demand for Jury Trial upon Mark Security Corporation on 9/16/2019. (MCO) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. |
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
| Search for this case: Moore v. Marksman Security Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Marksman Security Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Christopher James Meister |
| 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: Aaron Moore | |
| 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.
