Miholich v. Vimo, Inc. et al
Kyle Miholich |
DOES 1-10, ABC Corporations 1-10, Vimo, Inc. and ZYZ, LLC's 1-10 |
3:2018cv02256 |
September 27, 2018 |
US District Court for the Southern District of California |
Roger T Benitez |
Barbara Lynn Major |
Other Statutory Actions |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on November 21, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 ORDER Granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Defendant VIMO, INC. to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 11/21/2018. (anh) |
Filing 4 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff Kyle Miholichs Complaint by Vimo, Inc. (Sacks, Luanne)Attorney Luanne Roberta Sacks added to party Vimo, Inc.(pty:dft) (acc). |
Filing 3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Kyle Miholich, as to Vimo, Inc.. (Madar, Alexander) (anh). |
Filing 2 Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (cdw) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against ABC Corporations 1-10, DOES 1-10, Vimo, Inc., ZYZ, LLC's 1-10 ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0974-11730628), filed by Kyle Miholich. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:18-cv-02256-BEN-BLM. Judge Roger T. Benitez and Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case. (Madar, Alexander)(cdw) (sjt). |
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 Southern 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.