Reeves v. Reed
Arvel Derek Reeves |
Kenneth W Reed |
2:2020cv00972 |
May 19, 2020 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Dominic W Lanza |
Personal Injury: Motor Vehicle |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 *SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Arvel Derek Reeves: Affidavit of Service re: summons/complaint/civil cover sheet upon Kenneth Reed on 5/23/20. (Yetnikoff, Isidore) *Modified to correct event on 7/17/2020 (GMP). |
Filing 9 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Kenneth W Reed. (Collins, Peter) |
Filing 8 NOTICE re: NOTICE OF SERVICE OF COURT ORDER UPON DEFENDANT by Arvel Derek Reeves re: #7 Order, Set Deadlines . (Yetnikoff, Isidore) |
Filing 7 PRELIMINARY ORDER: IT IS ORDERED: 1. That Plaintiff(s) must promptly serve a copy of this Order on Defendant (s) and file a notice of service with the Clerk of Court; 2. That, unless the Court orders otherwise, on August 18, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall terminate without further notice any Defendant in this action that has not been served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 5/29/20. (MAW) |
Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kenneth W Reed filed by Arvel Derek Reeves.(Yetnikoff, Isidore) |
Filing 5 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that within two weeks of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 5/27/20. (MAW) |
Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Kenneth W Reed. (MCO). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-18296541. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Dominic W Lanza. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-20-972-PHX-DWL. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (MCO) |
Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Arvel Derek Reeves.. (Yetnikoff, Isidore) (MCO) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-18296541 filed by Arvel Derek Reeves. (Yetnikoff, Isidore) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(MCO) |
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: Reeves v. Reed | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Kenneth W Reed | |
Represented By: | Peter Collins, Jr. |
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: Arvel Derek Reeves | |
Represented By: | Isidore Yetnikoff |
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.