Gomez v. Morgan Stanley ETrade
| FELIPE NERY GOMEZ |
| MORGAN STANLEY ETRADE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Department of the Treasury, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Bankruptcy Section, SYNCHRONY BANK, AIS InfoSource LP, KEVIN BESETZNY and FRANK KOKOSZKA, Esq. |
| 26-2480 |
| September 4, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Other Statutes - Other Statutory Action |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 9, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY, Frank Kokoszka Esq., for Appellee Frank Kokoszka, ADDED. [Entered: 09/09/2026 09:17 AM] |
| Filing 7 NOTICE, to Morgan Stanley ETrade and Synchrony Bank, regarding a corporation proceeding Pro Se, and requesting a response 30 days from the date of this letter, SENT. [Entered: 09/04/2026 12:38 PM] [Edited: 09/04/2026 02:55 PM] |
| Filing 6 INSTRUCTIONAL FORMS, to Pro Se litigant, SENT. [Entered: 09/04/2026 12:18 PM] |
| Filing 5 NON-ADMITTED ATTORNEY, Kevin Besetzny and Frank Kokoszka, orally informed to apply for admission forthwith and submit Addendum A to Notice of Appearance, NOTIFIED. [Entered: 09/04/2026 12:15 PM] [Edited: 09/10/2026 01:00 PM] |
| Filing 4 CIVIL APPEAL, on behalf of Appellant Felipe Nery Gomez, OPENED. [Entered: 09/04/2026 12:11 PM] |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED. [Entered: 09/04/2026 12:08 PM] |
| Filing 2 DISTRICT COURT TRANSFER ORDER, dated 08/13/2026, RECEIVED. [Entered: 09/04/2026 12:03 PM] |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Felipe Nery Gomez, FILED. [Entered: 09/04/2026 11:59 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
