Reciprocating Intelligence Corp. v. MA Industries, Inc. et al
| Reciprocating Intelligence Corp. |
| MEL ARBIT, THOMAS SORENSEN, HANS KAAE, NIELS SORENSEN, MA Industries, Inc., DANSK MASKINPRODUCTION APS, EXLINE, INC., ARATEC PROJECT MANAGEMENT and Atatec Project Management |
| 3:2018cv05766 |
| September 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Elizabeth D Laporte |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Exline, Inc... (Gardner, Matthew) (Filed on 10/5/2018) |
| Filing 6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Reciprocating Intelligence Corp... (Horner, Clifford) (Filed on 10/4/2018) |
| Filing 5 CLERK'S NOTICE: The Initial Case Management Conference is rescheduled to 1/8/2019 at 3:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom E, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2018) |
Filing 4
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 1/1/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/8/2019 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 9/20/18. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2018)
|
| Answer to #1 Removal Complaint (Part 2 Page 1); byExline, Inc. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2018) |
| #Electronic filing error. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: #1 Notice of Removal,, filed by EXLINE, INC. Parties Must Not be Entered in all Capitalized Letters. Defendant Atatec Roject Management Spelt Incorrectly Should be Atatec Project Management (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2018) |
| Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 10/4/2018. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2018) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet by EXLINE, INC. . (Gardner, Matthew) (Filed on 9/20/2018) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CASE UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1441(b) (DIVERSITY); (NO PROCESS); from Alameda Superior Court. Their case number is RG18916185. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0971-12695964). Filed byEXLINE, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit Answer to Complaint, #3 Exhibit Notice to Adverse Party of Removal, #4 Exhibit Certificate of Service, #5 Exhibit Demand for Jury Trial, #6 Exhibit M.A. Industries Consent, #7 Exhibit Mel Arbit's Consent, #8 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Gardner, Matthew) (Filed on 9/20/2018) Modified on 9/21/2018 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). |
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 Northern 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.
