Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L. v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. et al
| Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L. |
| Puma Biotechnology, Inc. and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive |
| 2:2020cv11724 |
| December 29, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Christina A Snyder |
| Karen L Stevenson |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 2, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 20
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT #19 , by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On stipulation of the parties, Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc. is granted an additional ten-day extension to respond to Plaintiffs complaint, and shall file a response on or before March 8, 2021. (shb)
|
| Filing 19 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to March 8, 2021 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Colleen) |
| Filing 18 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc., identifying Puma Biotechnology, Inc. and Medica Scientia Innovation Research, S.L.. (Smith, Colleen) |
| Filing 17 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (Smith, Colleen) |
| Filing 16 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Puma Biotechnology, Inc. answer now due 2/26/2021, re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc..(Smith, Colleen) |
| Filing 15 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jordan Davisson Cook counsel for Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc.. Adding Jordan D. Cook as counsel of record for Puma Biotechnology, Inc. for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc.. (Attorney Jordan Davisson Cook added to party Puma Biotechnology, Inc.(pty:dft))(Cook, Jordan) |
| Filing 14 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Colleen C Smith counsel for Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc.. Adding Colleen. C. Smith as counsel of record for Puma Biotechnology, Inc. for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc.. (Attorney Colleen C Smith added to party Puma Biotechnology, Inc.(pty:dft))(Smith, Colleen) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER by Judge Christina A. Snyder: GRANTING #11 Non-Resident Attorney Fausto Sanchez APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff, Medical Scientia Innovation Reseach S. L., designating Chad S. Purdie as local counsel. (shb)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE TO COUNSEL upon filing of the complaint by Judge Christina A. Snyder. (rba) |
| Filing 11 First APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Fausto Sanchez to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L. (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-29871303) filed by MEDI CA SCIENTIA INNOVATION RESEARCH S.L., Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Purdie, Chad) |
| Filing 10 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Plaintiff Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L. (Purdie, Chad) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L., identifying Plaintiff Medica Scientia Innovation Research, S.L., Maria Campos, Javier Cortes, Antonio Llombart, Joan Mercadal, Carlos Barrios, Xavier Pivot, Puma Biotechnology, Inc.. (Purdie, Chad) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Fausto Sanchez. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. (jtil) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L.. (Purdie, Chad) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L.. (Purdie, Chad) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-29765348 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L.. (Attorney Chad Scott Purdie added to party Medica Scientia Innovation Research S.L.(pty:pla))(Purdie, Chad) |
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 California Central 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.
