Cobb v. Jim Ray, Inc. et al
Case Number: 2:2006cv02083
Filed: June 29, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Office: Fort Smith Office
Presiding Judge: Jimm Larry Hendren
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 29, 2006 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER denying 37 Motion to Stay Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Sever Claims of Plaintiffs; granting 32 Motion to Sever Claims of Plaintiffs, with filing fees for 58 newly created cases waived; denying 30 Motion for Referral to Arbitration and Stay Judicial Proceedings, without prejudice to being renewed as to any discrete claim once severance is accomplished; terminating 34 Motion for Summary Judgment and 39 Motion to Treat Documents 34, 35 and 36 as Rule 12 Motion without prejud ice to their renewal on a case specific basis. Plaintiff(s)in each of the 59 cases are directed to file an amended complaint setting forth their specific allegations, within 30 days from the date of this Order. Answers to amended complaints shall be filed within 11 days of the filing of each amended complaint. July 31, 2006, trial setting is continued sine die. Signed by Judge Jimm Larry Hendren on June 29, 2006.
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cobb v. Jim Ray, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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.

Why Is My Information Online?