Brewfab, LLC v. George Russo
| BREWFAB, LLC |
| GEORGE RUSSO |
| 22-11003 |
| March 29, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other Contract Actions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Richard A. Mitchell for Appellant George Russo. On the same day the CIP is served, any filer represented by counsel must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b). [22-11003] (ECF: Richard Mitchell) [Entered: 05/05/2022 10:32 AM] |
| MOTION to reinstate appeal filed by George Russo. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9662519-1] [22-11003] (ECF: Richard Mitchell) [Entered: 05/05/2022 05:15 PM] |
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the appellant George Russo failed to comply with the rules on Certificates of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statements. See 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 [Entered: 05/05/2022 08:56 AM]
|
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Morgan E.M. Harrison for George Russo [22-11003] (ECF: Morgan Harrison) [Entered: 05/04/2022 04:17 PM] |
| Notice to Counsel of Record. Counsel of Record must be logged in to CM/ECF and Pacer to access this document. This is the only notice you will receive regarding this matter. Please print a copy for your file. [Entered: 04/26/2022 12:58 PM] |
|
ORDER: The appellant's motion for leave to file the civil appeal statement out of time is GRANTED by clerk. [ # 9648455-2 ] [Entered: 04/21/2022 12:38 PM]
|
| Civil Appeal Statement filed by Attorney Richard A. Mitchell for Appellant George Russo. [Entered: 04/21/2022 12:40 PM] |
| Notice of deficient motion filed by Richard A. Mitchell for George Russo. Incorrect Relief selected for Motion Filed. The motion to file the civil appeal statement out of time was incorrectly filed as a motion for extension of time to file the civil appeal statement. Additionally, the motion and civil appeal statement should be separately attached in the docket entry. Counsel should file a corrected motion within 3 days from this date. [Entered: 04/20/2022 08:58 AM] |
| MOTION for leave to file Civil Appeal Statement out of time filed by George Russo. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9648455-1] [22-11003] (ECF: Richard Mitchell) [Entered: 04/20/2022 11:25 AM] |
| ***Docketing Error*** MOTION for extension of time to file a Civil Appeal Statement form to 04/19/2022 filed by George Russo. Opposition to Motion is Unknown. [9648033-1] [22-11003]--[Edited 04/20/2022 by JC] (ECF: Richard Mitchell) [Entered: 04/19/2022 05:40 PM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Richard A. Mitchell for George Russo. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Web-Based Stock Ticker Symbol CIP via the court's public web-page and have not filed the CIP via the electronic filing system (CM/ECF). If you are an appellant or petitioner, upon expiration of 14 days from the date of this notice, your appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution if the default has not been remedied, pursuant to 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-5(c) and 42-1(b). [Entered: 04/19/2022 10:01 AM] |
| Attorney Richard A. Mitchell for Appellant George Russo has been notified that upon expiration of fourteen (14) days from this date, this appeal will be dismissed by the clerk without further notice unless the required Civil Appeal Statement (CAS) and a motion to file the CAS out of time have been filed. [Entered: 04/19/2022 09:49 AM] |
| Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Marie A. Borland for Appellee Brewfab, LLC. On the same day the CIP is served, any filer represented by counsel must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b). [22-11003] (ECF: Marie Borland) [Entered: 04/18/2022 03:56 PM] |
| Briefing Notice issued to Appellant George Russo. The appellant's brief is due on or before 05/09/2022. The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief. [Entered: 04/12/2022 02:53 PM] |
| TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION form filed by Attorney Richard A. Mitchell for Appellant George Russo. No transcript is required for appeal purposes. [Entered: 04/11/2022 02:26 PM] |
| TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM SUBMITTED by Attorney Richard A. Mitchell for Appellant George Russo. No transcript is required for appeal purposes. [22-11003] (ECF: Richard Mitchell) [Entered: 04/08/2022 02:13 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Richard A. Mitchell for George Russo [22-11003] (ECF: Richard Mitchell) [Entered: 04/08/2022 12:33 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Marie A. Borland for Appellee BrewFab, LLC [22-11003] (ECF: Marie Borland) [Entered: 04/05/2022 01:15 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by John Rocco Cafaro for Brewfab, LLC. [22-11003] (ECF: John Cafaro) [Entered: 04/05/2022 01:28 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Nicole Danielle Duga Walsh for Brewfab, LLC. [22-11003] (ECF: Nicole Walsh) [Entered: 04/05/2022 02:57 PM] |
| CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant George Russo on 03/28/2022. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 04/18/2022 as to Appellant George Russo. Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 05/02/2022 as to Appellee Brewfab, LLC [Entered: 04/04/2022 11:28 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
