Chambers v. Bissell Homecare Inc
| Steven Chambers |
| Bissell Homecare Inc |
| 4:2022cv00752 |
| August 23, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| D P Marshall |
| Contract: Other |
| 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 MOTION for Leave to File Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand by Bissell Homecare Inc (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Tom, Robert) |
Filing 22
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER: Unopposed motion, Doc. #21 , mostly denied. The 26(f) joint report deadline is extended to 18 November 2022. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/17/2022. (slb)
|
| Filing 21 Unopposed MOTION to Stay re #10 MOTION to Remand to State Court , #6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Stay Pending Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand by Bissell Homecare Inc (Tom, Robert) |
| Filing 20 REPLY to Response to Motion re #10 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Slade, David) |
| Filing 19 RESPONSE in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Remand to State Court Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand filed by Bissell Homecare Inc. (Tom, Robert) |
| Filing 18 REPLY MEMORANDUM in support re #6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bissell Homecare Inc. (Tom, Robert) (Docket text modified on 9/27/2022 to correct the description of the document filed)((jak) |
| NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re #18 Response to Motion. CORRECTION: The docket text was modified to correct the description of the document filed as "REPLY MEMORANDUM in support re #6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Bissell Homecare Inc." as marked on the document. (jak) |
|
Filing 17
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER: Unopposed motion, Doc. #16 , granted. Reply due by 27 September 2022. In the future, any moving party may reply within seven calendar days of the response. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/21/2022. (slb)
|
| NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re #16 Motion. CORRECTION: The docket entry was modified to correct the filing event as "MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief" as marked on the document. (jak) |
| Filing 16 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Bissell Homecare Inc (Tom, Robert) (Docket entry modified on 9/16/2022 to correct the filing event) (jak) |
|
Filing 15
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER: Unopposed motion, Doc. #13 , granted as modified. Bissell's response to motion to remand due by 6 October 2022. Any moving party may reply within seven calendar days of a response. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/13/2022. (slb)
|
| Filing 14 RESPONSE in Opposition re #6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice filed by Steven Chambers. (Slade, David) |
| Filing 13 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #10 MOTION to Remand to State Court Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Remand by Bissell Homecare Inc (Tom, Robert) |
| Filing 12 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re #10 Remand to State Court filed by Steven Chambers. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Slade, David) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re #10 MOTION to Remand. CORRECTION: The original document was submitted in error (wrong image file). The correct document was added to docket entry #10 and is attached hereto for review by the parties. (jak) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Steven Chambers (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Slade, David) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/2/2022: #2 Main Document - Correct (submitted 9/2/2022)) (jak). |
| Filing 9 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Report due by 10/18/2022. Jury Trial set for 10/7/2024 at 9:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom # 1A before Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. Signed at the direction of the Court on 8/31/2022. (slb) |
| Filing 8 SEALED EXHIBIT. (fjg) |
| Filing 7 MEMORANDUM re #6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice filed by Bissell Homecare Inc. Bissell Homecare, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice (Tom, Robert) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice by Bissell Homecare Inc (Tom, Robert) |
|
Filing 5
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER: Motion, Doc. #3 , conditionally granted. Bissell Homecare may file Exhibit C conventionally and under seal, subject to the Court's review of the exhibit. Please send a courtesy copy to Little Rock chambers. The exhibit must remain confidential, attorney's eyes only material until an appropriate protective Order is entered. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/30/2022. (slb)
|
| Filing 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement (Rule 7.1) by Bissell Homecare Inc (Tom, Robert) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Seal Exhibit by Bissell Homecare Inc (Tom, Robert) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Steven Chambers against Bissell Homecare Inc. (ldb) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Bissell Homecare Inc from Lonoke County Circuit Court, case number 43CV-22-387. Fee $402, receipt number LIT088002. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (ldb) |
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.
