Parts Warehouse Inc v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
| Parts Warehouse Inc |
| Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| 4:2019cv00554 |
| August 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Kristine G Baker |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 12, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 11/25/2019; Rule 26(f) Report due by 12/9/2019; Jury Trial set for sometime during the week of 10/26/2020 at 09:00 AM in Little Rock Courtroom # 4C before Judge Kristine G. Baker. Signed at the direction of the Court on 09/25/2019. (tmw) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to #2 Complaint by Union Pacific Railroad Company.(Hudson, Ashley) |
Filing 6
ORDER granting #5 motion for extension of time to respond to complaint. Union Pacific Railroad Company shall have up to and including 9/3/2019, to file an answer or otherwise respond to Parts Warehouse's #2 complaint. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/28/2019. (jbh)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Union Pacific Railroad Company (Hudson, Ashley) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: #2 Complaint. CORRECTION: The original document was attached to the docket in error (wrong case) due to a clerical mistake by the Clerk's office. The correct document was added as an attachment to docket entry #2 and is attached hereto for review by the parties. (thd) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: #1 Notice of Removal. CORRECTION: The original documents were attached to the docket in error (wrong case) due to a clerical mistake by the Clerk's office. The correct main document and Civil Cover Sheet were added as attachments to docket entry #1 and are attached hereto for review by the parties. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(thd) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Union Pacific Railroad Company, filed by Parts Warehouse Inc. (jbh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/12/2019: #1 Main Document - Correct) (thd). |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Union Pacific Railroad Company from Pulaski County Circuit Court, case number 60CV-19-4826. Fee of $400 paid; receipt number LIT073406. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (jbh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/12/2019: #2 Main Document - Correct, #3 Civil Cover Sheet - Correct) (thd). |
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 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
| Search for this case: Parts Warehouse Inc v. Union Pacific Railroad Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Union Pacific Railroad Company | |
| Represented By: | Ashley R. Hudson |
| 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: Parts Warehouse Inc | |
| Represented By: | Michael G. Smith |
| 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.
