O'Connell v. Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana P.C. et al
Daniel H O'Connell |
Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana P.C., Jill D Wiley, Unknown Wiley and Unknown Parties |
4:2022cv00050 |
January 31, 2022 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Jennifer G Zipps |
Labor: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Receipt of Remand Letter from Pima County Superior Court Clerk's Office. (REK) |
Filing 7 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's Order filed February 11, 2022, this case is remanded to the Pima County Superior Court. (ARC) |
Filing 6 ORDER granting #4 Joint Motion to Remand to State Court. This case is remanded to the Pima County Superior Court. The Clerk of the Court shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Pima County Superior Court. Immediately upon remand to Pima County Superior Court, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in a form that has been agreed upon by the parties and as was attached to the Parties' Motion as Exhibit A. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case. It is further ordered that, in light of the Parties' Joint Motion and agreement that Plaintiff will amend his complaint, the Waterfall Defendants will not respond to Plaintiff's original Complaint, and instead will file their response(s) to the amended complaint within 14 days following service thereof to defendants' attorney by email only. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 2/10/2022. (See Order for complete details) (Attachments: #1 Remand Letter) (ARC) |
Filing 5 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: #4 Joint MOTION to Remand to State Court - Revised Proposed Order by Plaintiff Daniel H O'Connell. (Laird, Brian) |
Filing 4 Joint MOTION to Remand to State Court by Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana P.C., Jill D Wiley, Unknown Wiley. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Amended Complaint, #2 Proposed Order)(Goncharsky, Abbe) |
Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-20286657. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Jennifer G Zipps. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-22-00050-TUC-JGZ. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (SCA) |
Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana P.C. (Goncharsky, Abbe) (SCA) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Pima County Superior Court, case number C2022-0043. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number 0970-20286657 filed by Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana P.C., Jill D Wiley. (Goncharsky, Abbe) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5)(SCA) |
***STATE COURT RECORDS RECEIVED*** SERVICE EXECUTED: Acceptance of Service re: Complaint, Summonses, and FASTAR Certificate upon Abbe M Goncharshy, Counsel for Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villamana, P.C. on 01/12/2022. (Original Filed in Pima County Superior Court on 01/12/2022) SERVICE EXECUTED: Acceptance of Service re: Complaint, Summonses, and FASTAR Certificate upon Abbe M Goncharshy, Counsel for Jill D Wiley on 01/12/2022. (Original Filed in Pima County Superior Court on 01/12/2022)(SCA) 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
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.