Bank OZK v. Monterrey Aviation LLC et al
| Bank OZK and Bank of the Ozarks |
| Juan Gaytan, Jr, Monterrey Security Consultants Inc and Monterrey Aviation LLC |
| 4:2021cv00283 |
| April 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Kristine G Baker |
| Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) DOCKET NOTE: This case is assigned to the docket of United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin is now associated to this case due to the retirement of Magistrate Judge Beth Deere. Signed at the Direction of the Court on 6/1/2021. (ajt) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Reece Owens on behalf of Juan Gaytan, Jr, Monterrey Aviation LLC, Monterrey Security Consultants Inc (Owens, Daniel) |
| Filing 3 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Juan Gaytan, Jr, Monterrey Aviation LLC, Monterrey Security Consultants Inc.(Emerson, Michael) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Emerson on behalf of All Defendants (Emerson, Michael) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Bank OZK. (Fee $402 paid. Receipt Number LIT081616.) Summons issued and returned to counsel. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ajt) |
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
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.
