Roth Grading, Inc. v. Martin Brothers Construction
| Roth Grading, Inc. and Roth Grading, Inc. Doing business as Impact Roller Technology, a Nebraska Corporation |
| Martin Brothers Construction |
| 2:2020cv00336 |
| February 13, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Carolyn K Delaney |
| Kimberly J Mueller |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 ANSWER by Martin Brothers Construction. Attorney Meredith, Gregory Alan added.(Meredith, Gregory) |
| Filing 15 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 6/25/2020 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order, #2 Consent Form, #3 VDRP) (Sant Agata, S) |
| Filing 14 CLERK'S NOTICE DIRECTING Attorneys Aaron F. Smeall, Patrick T. Vint, and Todd W. Weidemann to submit Pro Hac Vice Application to Practice in the Eastern District of California. (Sant Agata, S) (Sant Agata, S). |
| Filing 13 CASE TRANSFERRED IN from District of Nebraska; Case Number 8:20-cv-00010. |
Filing 12
ORDER: Plaintiff Roth Grading, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue (Filing No. 11) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Defendant Martin Brothers Construction's Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 5) for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied as moot. Ordered by Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.. (ADB) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.]
|
| Case transferred to United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Original electronic file sent. (ADB) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Change Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406 and Motion for Extension of Time by Attorney Aaron F. Smeall on behalf of Plaintiff Roth Grading, Inc..(Smeall, Aaron) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 10 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 by Attorney Patrick T. Vint on behalf of Defendant Martin Brothers Construction.(Vint, Patrick) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 9 TEXT NOTICE REGARDING CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Deputy Clerk as to Plaintiff Roth Grading, Inc. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, non-governmental corporate parties are required to file Corporate Disclosure Statements (Statements). The parties shall use the form Corporate Disclosure Statement, available on the Web site of the court at http://www.ned.uscourts.gov/forms/. If you have not filed your Statement, you must do so within 15 days of the date of this notice. If you have already filed your Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires.(CS) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 8 TEXT NOTICE REGARDING CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Deputy Clerk as to Defendant Martin Brothers Construction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, non-governmental corporate parties are required to file Corporate Disclosure Statements (Statements). The parties shall use the form Corporate Disclosure Statement, available on the Web site of the court at http://www.ned.uscourts.gov/forms/. If you have not filed your Statement, you must do so within 15 days of the date of this notice. If you have already filed your Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires.(CS) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 7 INDEX in support of MOTION to Dismiss #5 by Attorney Patrick T. Vint on behalf of Defendant Martin Brothers Construction.(Vint, Patrick) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 6 BRIEF in support of MOTION to Dismiss #5 by Attorney Patrick T. Vint on behalf of Defendant Martin Brothers Construction. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Patrick T. Vint, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E)(Vint, Patrick) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Dismiss by Attorney Patrick T. Vint on behalf of Defendant Martin Brothers Construction.(Vint, Patrick) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to defendant Martin Brothers Construction YOU MUST PRINT YOUR ISSUED SUMMONS, WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT. PAPER COPIES WILL NOT BE MAILED. (LRM) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 3 Summons Requested as to Martin Brothers Construction regarding Complaint, #1 . (Smeall, Aaron) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 2 TEXT NOTICE OF JUDGES ASSIGNED: Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson assigned. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2), the parties are notified that, if all parties consent, a magistrate judge may conduct a civil action or proceeding, including a jury or nonjury trial, subject to the courts rules and policies governing the assignment of judges in civil cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; NEGenR 1.4. (LRM) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Martin Brothers Construction ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number ANEDC-4088337), by Attorney Aaron F. Smeall on behalf of Roth Grading, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Contract, #2 Exhibit B - Martin Brothers Purchase Order)(Smeall, Aaron) [Transferred from ned on 2/13/2020.] |
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 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.
