Kenneth S. Grossman v. David Sin et al
| Kenneth S. Grossman |
| David Sin, Angelo John Coloma, Andrew Rickman, Mahesh Karanth, Chad Becker, SC Health Holdings Limited, SC Health Group Limited and SIN Capital Group Pte. Ltd. |
| 2:2023cv09501 |
| November 9, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Maria A Audero |
| Stephen V Wilson |
| Securities/Commodities |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 37
ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON-RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE PRO HAC VICE by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. APPLICATION of Attorney Ari M. Berman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman, designating David L. Stanton as local counsel GRANTED.; granting #36 Non-Resident Attorney Ari M. Berman. (aco)
|
| Filing 36 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Ari M. Berman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Previously Paid on 12/22/2023, Receipt No. 36622641) filed by Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Attorney David L Stanton added to party Chad Becker(pty:dft), Attorney David L Stanton added to party Mahesh Karanth(pty:dft), Attorney David L Stanton added to party Andrew Rickman(pty:dft)) (Stanton, David) |
| Filing 35 NOTICE of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Pro Hac Vice Application RE: APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Ari M. Berman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-36622641) #32 . The following error(s) was/were found: Local Rule 83-2.1.3.4 Local counsel does not maintain an office within the District for the practice of law, in which the attorney is physically present on a regular basis to conduct business. (sbou) |
| Filing 34 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case #33 [AMENDED] filed by Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-3, #2 Exhibit 4 Part 1, #3 Exhibit 4 Part 2, #4 Exhibit 5, #5 Exhibit 6 Part 1, #6 Exhibit 6 Part 2, #7 Exhibit 7-8, #8 Exhibit 9, #9 Exhibit 10-11, #10 Exhibit 12-23)(Ericson, Bruce) |
| Filing 33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman. Motion set for hearing on 2/12/2024 at 01:30 PM before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Request For Judicial Notice In Support of Motion) (Ericson, Bruce) |
| Filing 32 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Ari M. Berman to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $500 Fee Paid, Receipt No. ACACDC-36622641) filed by Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Ericson, Bruce) |
|
Filing 31
IN CHAMBERS ORDER/TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Judge Stephen V. Wilson re: Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer #28 - The stipulation is DENIED. Defendant's answer is due no later than December 22, 2023. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (pc) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 30 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman, identifying Mahesh Karanth, Chad Becker and Andrew Rickman. (Ericson, Bruce) |
| Filing 29 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Bruce A Ericson counsel for Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman. Adding Bruce A. Ericson as counsel of record for Mahesh Karanth, Chad Becker and Andrew Rickman for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Mahesh Karanth, Chad Becker and Andrew Rickman. (Ericson, Bruce) |
| Filing 28 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to After PSLRA lead plaintiff chosen filed by Defendants Chad Becker, Mahesh Karanth, Andrew Rickman. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Extending Time to Respond to Complaint)(Attorney Bruce A Ericson added to party Chad Becker(pty:dft), Attorney Bruce A Ericson added to party Mahesh Karanth(pty:dft), Attorney Bruce A Ericson added to party Andrew Rickman(pty:dft))(Ericson, Bruce) |
| Filing 27 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman, upon Defendant Chad Becker served on 11/21/2023, answer due 12/12/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Chad Becker, personally in compliance with statute not specified by personal service (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 26 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman, upon Defendant Mahesh Karanth served on 11/17/2023, answer due 12/8/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Mahesh Karanth, personally in compliance with statute not specified by personal service (Cochran, Brian) |
|
Filing 25
NEW CASE ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (pc)
|
| Filing 24 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Richard W. Gonnello. 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. (sh) |
| Filing 23 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Samuel H. Rudman. 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. (sh) |
| Filing 22 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant SIN Capital Group Pte. Ltd.. (sh) |
| Filing 21 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant SC Health Group Limited. (sh) |
| Filing 20 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant SC Health Holdings Limited. (sh) |
| Filing 19 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Chad Becker. (sh) |
| Filing 18 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Mahesh Karanth. (sh) |
| Filing 17 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Andrew Rickman. (sh) |
| Filing 16 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Angelo John Coloma. (sh) |
| Filing 15 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant David Sin. (sh) |
| Filing 14 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (sh) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (sh) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. (sh) |
| Filing 11 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 10 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 9 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 8 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 7 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 6 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 5 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman, (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Cochran, Brian) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-36385120 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Kenneth S. Grossman. (Attorney Brian Edward Cochran added to party Kenneth S. Grossman(pty:pla))(Cochran, Brian) |
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.
