Noch v. Independent Film Development Corp. (IFLM) et al
Plaintiff: Jake Noch
Defendant: Theo Hanson and Independent Film Development Corp. (IFLM)
Case Number: 3:2019cv01327
Filed: July 16, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Presiding Judge: Mitchell D Dembin
Referring Judge: Janis L Sammartino
Nature of Suit: Stockholders Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Janis L. Sammartino Rejecting Document: Defendants Motion to Dismiss [Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)], from Defendant Theo Hanson. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 5.1: Missing time and date on motion and/or supporting documentation, Case closed per ECF No. 5., Rejected document was returned to the filer. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/06/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/7/2019: #1 rejected document) (jpp).
August 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Janis L. Sammartino Rejecting Document: Motion to Reconsider Order of July 30, 2019, from Defendant Theo Hanson. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 5.1: Missing time and date on motion and/or supporting documentation, Case closed per ECF No. 5; and Following remand, see ECF No. 5, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Hansons Motion for Reconsideration. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.) (collecting cases)., Rejected document was returned to the filer. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/06/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/7/2019: #1 rejected document) (jpp).
August 6, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 8 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Janis L. Sammartino Rejecting Document: Amended Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 USC 1441 (Diversity), from Defendant Theo Hanson. Non-compliance with local rule(s), OTHER: FRCvP 41 Case Closed; and Following remand, see ECF No. 5, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Hansons Amended Notice of Removal. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (Once a district court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction and can take no further action on the case.... [A] second removal petition based on the same grounds does not reinvest the courts jurisdiction.... A remand order returns the case to the state courts and the federal court has no power to retrieve it.) (collecting cases) (citations omitted)., Rejected document was returned to the filer. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/06/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/7/2019: #1 rejected document) (jpp).
July 30, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: (1) Remanding action to the District Court, First Judicial District for the County of Laramie, State of Wyoming, and (2) Denying as moot #4 Theo Hanson's motion to intervene. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/30/2019. (cc: District Court, First Judicial District for the County of Laramie, State of Wyoming). (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp) (jao).
July 25, 2019 Filing 4 MOTION to Intervene, by Theo Hanson. NUNC PRO TUNC 7/24/2019 (jpp)
July 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Janis L. Sammartino Accepting Document: Defendant Theo Hansons Motion to Intervene, from Defendant Theo Hanson. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Civ. L. Rule 5.1: Missing time and date on motion and/or supporting documentation. Nunc Pro Tunc 7/24/2019. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/25/2019.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
July 24, 2019 Filing 2 ANSWER to Complaint by Theo Hanson.(jpp)
July 16, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Judicial District of the State of Wyoming, case number 191-790 filed by Theo Hanson (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number CAS113633). (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A - State Court Complaint, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C)The new case number is 3:19-cv-1327-JLS-MDD. Judge Janis L. Sammartino and Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin are assigned to the case.(smd)

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 this case: Noch v. Independent Film Development Corp. (IFLM) et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Theo Hanson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Independent Film Development Corp. (IFLM)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jake Noch
Represented By: Bruce Asay
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?