Service Restoration Inc v. Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church
| Service Restoration Inc |
| Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church |
| Church Mutual Insurance Company SI |
| 4:2023cv00781 |
| August 23, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Lee P Rudofsky |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER denying #11 Motion to Remand to State Court for the reasons set forth in #13 Church Mutual's Response in Opposition to the Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 10/3/23. (sss)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE in Opposition re #11 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Church Mutual Insurance Company SI. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit B-Receipt of Filing Fee Paid, #3 Exhibit C-Email Correspondence)(Wolf, Timothy) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE in Opposition re #8 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Abate and Dismiss and/or Sever Cross-Plaintiff Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church's Cross-Claim filed by Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church. (Ogles, Johnson) |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church (Ogles, Johnson) |
| Filing 10 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re #8 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Abate and Dismiss and/or Sever Cross-Plaintiff Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church's Cross-Claim filed by Church Mutual Insurance Company SI. (Wolf, Timothy) |
| Filing 9 Deficiency Letter from Clerk of Court notifying party that #8 Motion to Dismiss is not accompanied by a supporting brief (Local Rule 7.2(a)). (jak) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Abate and Dismiss and/or Sever Cross-Plaintiff Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church's Cross-Claim by Church Mutual Insurance Company SI (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-Rose Hill's Original Petition, #2 Exhibit B-Original Removal, #3 Exhibit C-Service Restoration's Motion for Leave to Intervene, #4 Exhibit D-Response on Opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene, #5 Exhibit E-Intervention Order)(Wolf, Timothy) |
| Filing 7 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Report due by 11/13/2023 and Jury Trial set for 11/19/2024 at 9:30 AM in Little Rock, Arkansas Courtroom #1D before Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. Signed at the Direction of the Court on 8/27/2023. (hml) |
| Filing 6 Corporate Disclosure Statement (Rule 7.1) by Church Mutual Insurance Company SI (Wolf, Timothy) |
| Filing 5 Deficiency Letter from Clerk of the Court notifying party that #1 Notice of Removal lacks an original signature (F.R.Cv.P. 11(a) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(1)) and Corporate Disclosure Statement not filed with first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request (F.R.Cv.P. 7.1). (ldb) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER ON AMICUS BRIEFS. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 3/21/2023. (ldb)
|
| Filing 3 ANSWER to #2 Complaint and CROSSCLAIM against Church Mutual Insurance Company SI, by Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church. (ldb) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT filed by Service Restoration Inc against Rose Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church. (ldb) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand by Church Mutual Insurance Company SI from Drew County Circuit Court, case number 22CV-23-128. Fee $402, receipt number LIT3321. (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.
