Arapaho LLC v. Langan et al
| Arapaho LLC |
| Morgan Joseph Langan, RE 017 747 199 US Trust private express trust trustee of Morgan Joseph Langan doing business as RP3 FM Security doing business as FM Surety, Estate of Morgan Joseph Langan, Unknown Parties and Yavapai County Treasurer |
| 3:2023cv08582 |
| October 23, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Douglas L Rayes |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE re: Letter by Morgan Joseph Langan. (DXD) |
Filing 9
ORDER: The Court remanded this case to the Yavapai County Superior Court on October 27, 2023. (Doc. #4 .) On November 15, 2023, the Court denied Defendant's motion for reconsideration of that remand order. (Doc. 6 .) Defendant continues to file motions and other documents in this now-closed case. (See Docs. #7 , #8 .) These recent filings are STRICKEN. The Court reiterates to Defendant that this case has been remanded to the Yavapai County Superior Court. Any further filings should be directed to that court, not this one. Ordered by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 11/21/2023. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MMO)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE re: Judicial Notice and Inquiry by Morgan Joseph Langan. (DXD) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to File Non-Electronic Exhibits by Morgan Joseph Langan. (DXD) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: On October 26, 2023, this Court sua sponte remanded this case to Yavapai County Superior Court, finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. #4 .) On November 14, 2023, Defendant Morgan Joseph Langan filed a response (Doc. #5 ), which the Court liberally construes as a motion for reconsideration. Not only is Defendant's motion untimely, having been filed more than 14 days after the Court's remand (see LRCiv 7.2(g)(2)), but it also fails to show how the Court overlooked or misapprehended any matters. Defendant's motion parrots a litany of inapposite case law before repeating the same arguments made in his initial notice of removal (Doc. #1 ). Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(g), the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's motion for reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 11/15/2023. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MMO)
|
| Filing 5 RESPONSE re: #4 Order by Plaintiff Arapaho LLC. (DXD) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/15/2023: #1 Attachment) (KJ). |
|
Filing 4
ORDER - The Clerk shall REMAND this action back to Yavapai County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 10/26/23. (Attachments: #1 Remand Letter)(DXD)
|
| Filing 3 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. (BAS) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee paid, receipt number 200008926. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L. Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV23-08582-PCT-DLR. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (BAS) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Yavapai County Superior Court, case number S-1300-CV-2023-80105. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number 200008926 filed by Morgan Joseph Langan. (Attachments: #1 includes only 2 pages of state court documents)(BAS) |
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.
