Aviation Tech v. Aeroframe Svc
Plaintiff / Appellee: Charles Jackson
Defendant / Appellant: Aeroframe Services, L.L.C.
3Rd Party Defendant: Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated
Case Number: 22-30207
Filed: April 14, 2022
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
March 19, 2024 Summary Aviaton Tech v. Aeroframe Services
March 19, 2024 Aviaton Tech v. Aeroframe Services

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 10, 2022 RESPONSE DUE to Motion to consolidate cases filed by Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. in 22-30207, 22-30212 [ # 9865745-2 ], Motion to extend time to file appellant's brief filed by Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. in 22-30207, 22-30212 [ # 9865745-3 ]. Response/Opposition due on 06/21/2022 [22-30207, 22-30212] (MCS) [Entered: 06/10/2022 08:14 AM]
June 9, 2022 The opposed motion to consolidate cases 22-30207 & 22-30212 with the group of consolidated cases in 22-30288, for briefing and oral argument purposes [ # 9865745-2 ]; or in the alternative, unopposed motion to extend time to file Appellant's brief until 7/18/2022, filed by Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C., in 22-30207, 22-30212 [ # 9865745-3 ], has been made sufficient. Sufficient Motion deadline satisfied. [22-30207, 22-30212] (DLJ) [Entered: 06/09/2022 03:00 PM]
June 8, 2022 SUFFICIENT MOTION FILED. Sufficient motion deadline satisfied. REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED - The text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION to consolidate cases 22-30207 & 22-30212 with the group of consolidated cases in 22-30288, for briefing and oral argument purposes; or in the alternative, unopposed motion to extend time to file brief as Appellant until 07/18/2022 [9865745-3]. Motion NOT Sufficient as it requires a Certificate of Compliance that lists the word count of the motion. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. Sufficient Motion due via E-MAIL on 06/21/2022, for Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. [22-30207, 22-30212] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED - The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. in 22-30207, 22-30212 to consolidate cases 22-30207 into 22-30288 (17 total cases) for briefing and oral argument purposes. Date of service: 06/08/2022, via email - Attorney for Appellant: Billeaud; Attorney for Appellees: Gabb, Gundlach, Vance, Venn. [22-30207, 22-30212] (Lawrence Charles Billeaud ) [Entered: 06/08/2022 03:42 PM]
May 19, 2022 CLERK ORDER granting unopposed motion to consolidate cases 22-30207 and 22-30212 for briefing and oral argument purposes, filed by Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. [ # 9851470-2 ] in 22-30207. [22-30207, 22-30212] The consolidated Appellant's brief and record excerpts are due to be filed by 06/21/2022. (DLJ) [Entered: 05/19/2022 04:26 PM]
May 19, 2022 UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. to consolidate cases 22-30207 and 22-30212 for briefing and oral argument purposes. Date of service: 05/19/2022 via email - Attorney for Appellant: Billeaud; Attorney for Appellees: Gabb, Gundlach, Vance, Venn [22-30207] (Lawrence Charles Billeaud ) [Entered: 05/19/2022 03:39 PM]
May 12, 2022 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 06/21/2022 for Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C.. [22-30207] (CMB) [Entered: 05/12/2022 07:48 AM]
May 12, 2022 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [22-30207] (CMB) [Entered: 05/12/2022 07:45 AM]
May 4, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Virginia Weichert Gundlach for Appellee Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated, in case 22-30207. [22-30207] (DLJ) [Entered: 05/04/2022 08:41 AM]
May 4, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Lawrence Charles Billeaud for Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. in 22-30207 [22-30207] (MAS) [Entered: 05/04/2022 11:10 AM]
May 4, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Samuel Bryan Gabb for party(s) Appellee Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated, in case 22-30207 [22-30207] (MAS) [Entered: 05/04/2022 11:12 AM]
May 4, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Robert Patrick Vance for Appellee Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated, in 22-30207. [22-30207] (DLJ) [Entered: 05/04/2022 08:37 AM]
May 3, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? No. [22-30207] (Samuel Bryan Gabb ) [Entered: 05/03/2022 06:07 PM]
May 3, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [22-30207] (Brett S. Venn ) [Entered: 05/03/2022 12:57 PM]
May 3, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? No. [22-30207] (Virginia Weichert Gundlach ) [Entered: 05/03/2022 02:30 PM]
May 3, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Robert Patrick Vance, Esq. for Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated for the court's review. Lead Counsel? No. [22-30207] (Robert Patrick Vance ) [Entered: 05/03/2022 01:47 PM]
May 3, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Brett S. Venn for Appellee Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated, in case 22-30207. [22-30207] (DLJ) [Entered: 05/03/2022 02:47 PM]
May 3, 2022 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Lawrence Charles Billeaud for Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [22-30207] (Lawrence Charles Billeaud ) [Entered: 05/03/2022 03:24 PM]
April 25, 2022 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9830884-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [22-30207] (MAS) [Entered: 04/25/2022 01:10 PM]
April 25, 2022 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 2:16-CV-1397. Electronic ROA due on 05/10/2022. [22-30207] (MAS) [Entered: 04/25/2022 01:12 PM]
April 21, 2022 CASE CAPTION updated. Appellee Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated added to case. [22-30207] (MAS) [Entered: 04/21/2022 01:12 PM]
April 21, 2022 CASE CAPTION updated. Involvement terminated for Appellee Charles Jackson in 22-30207. [22-30207] (MAS) [Entered: 04/21/2022 01:16 PM]
April 14, 2022 PRIVATE CIVIL DIVERSITY CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Aeroframe Services, L.L.C. [22-30207] (MAS) [Entered: 04/14/2022 01:13 PM]

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.

Search for this case: Aviation Tech v. Aeroframe Svc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff / appellee: Charles Jackson
Represented By: Thomas Patrick LeBlanc I
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: Aeroframe Services, L.L.C.
Represented By: Lawrence Charles Billeaud
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
3rd party defendant: Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated
Represented By: Brett S. Venn
Represented By: Samuel Bryan Gabb
Represented By: Virginia Weichert Gundlach
Represented By: Robert Patrick Vance Esq.
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?