Parnell et al v. Seterus Inc
| Jay Calvin Parnell and Tyler Wren Parnell |
| Seterus Inc |
| 3:2018cv00034 |
| February 28, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Jonesboro Office |
| Craighead |
| D. P. Marshall |
| All Other Real Property |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| None |
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
120
ORDER denying 82 Motion to Supplement witness list and discovery responses. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 5/3/2022. (jak)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER granting 58 Motion. The matter of a settlement conference in this case is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 11/24/2020. (jak)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER: There's been no activity on the docket for more than 180 days. The Court assumes the parties are making progress. But if the case is not on track, file a short joint report explaining any problem by 10/9/2019. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/25/2019. (jak)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER granting 19 Motion. The Court directs the Clerk to update the docket with the Parnells' contact information, No. 19 at 2 because they're now pro se. Their new lawyer should appear as soon as practicable, and no later than 4/30/2019. A Second Amended Final Scheduling Order will issue. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/21/2019. (jak)
|
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
