New Enterprises Limited v. SenesTech Incorporated et al
| New Enterprises Limited |
| SenesTech Incorporated and Roth Capital Partners LLC |
| 3:2018cv08033 |
| February 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Prescott Division Office |
| XX Outside US |
| Bridget S Bade |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
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
84
ORDER denying 83 Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend deadlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting the remaining deadlines in this case as follows (any deadline not specifically referenced below is not extended): (1) The party with the burden o f proof on an issue shall make all expert disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 10/21/2019; (2) The responding party (not having the burden of proof on the issue) shall make all expert disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 11/22/2019; (3) The party with the burden of proof on the issue shall make its rebuttal expert disclosure, if any, no later than 12/20/2019; (4) All discovery, including depositions of parties, witnesses, and experts, answers to interrogatories, and supplements to interrogatories must be completed by 1/21/2020; and (5) All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than 2/20/2020.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there will be NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS of these deadlines. (See attached Order for additional information.) Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 8/27/2019. (RMW)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER denying Defendant Roth Capital Partners, LLC's 70 Motion to Dismiss; denying Defendant SenesTech, Inc.'s 71 Motion to Dismiss. See attachment for details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/16/19. (CLB)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER granting 60 Plaintiff New Enterprises, Ltd.'s Motion to Amend. Plaintiff shall file the proposed First Amended Complaint (Doc. [60-1]) within two (2) days of the date of this Order. [See attached order for additional information.] Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 4/5/2019. (RMW)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER: Defendant SenesTech, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss 14 is GRANTED. Defendant Defendant Roth Capital Partners, LLC's Motion to Dismiss 30 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a motion to amend, consistent with the a pplicable Local Rules, by January 11, 2019. If no motion to amend the complaint is received by January 11, 2019, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 12/03/2018. (REK)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must immediately begin jurisdictional discovery and must, within 35 days, file a supplement establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed, without prejudice [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/22/18. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. To satisfy this show cause, Plaintiff must file a supplement to the complaint by June 15, 2018 establishing f ederal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael DiGiacomo must amend the civil cover sheet to be consistent with the complaint. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/7/18. (MAW)
|
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.
