Doe v. PreCheck Incorporated
John Doe |
PreCheck Incorporated |
2:2021cv01129 |
June 29, 2021 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Douglas L Rayes |
Other Statutes: Consumer Credit |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 27, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 11 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by PreCheck Incorporated.(King, Anthony) |
Filing 10 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Susan Mary Rotkis. (Rotkis, Susan) |
Filing 9 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the parties' #8 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint, the deadline for Defendant PreCheck Incorporated to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint is extended to and including 8/27/2021. Ordered by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/29/2021. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MMO) |
Filing 8 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT (First Request) by PreCheck Incorporated. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A - Proposed Order)(King, Anthony) |
Filing 7 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by John Doe: Return of Service re: Issued Summons, Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, and Motion and Order to Proceed by Pseudonym upon PreCheck, Inc. on 07/07/2021. (Rotkis, Susan) |
Filing 6 ORDER granting #2 Motion. Plaintiff John Doe has demonstrated that he should be granted leave to proceed in pseudonym and that a Protective Order should enter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) to protect his name from being disclosed in the litigation of the above-captioned case. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 6/30/2021. (WLP) |
Filing 5 Summons Issued as to PreCheck Incorporated. (DLC). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
Filing 4 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-19613902. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-21-1129-PHX-DLR. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (DLC) |
Filing 3 SUMMONS Submitted by John Doe. (Rotkis, Susan) (DLC) |
Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed by Pseudonym and MOTION for Protective Order and Memorandum in Support by John Doe. (Rotkis, Susan) (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(DLC) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number 0970-19613902 filed by John Doe. (Rotkis, Susan) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(DLC) |
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: Doe v. PreCheck Incorporated | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: PreCheck Incorporated | |
Represented By: | Anthony Tom King |
Represented By: | Ashley Marie Repka |
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: John Doe | |
Represented By: | Susan Mary Rotkis |
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.