Micah Uetricht, et al v. Chicago Parking Meters, LLC
| MICAH UETRICHT and JOHN KADERBEK |
| CHICAGO PARKING METERS, LLC |
| 22-1166 |
| February 2, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Antitrust |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Uetricht v. Chicago Parking Meters, LLC
|
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
Order issued GRANTING motion to extend time to file appellants' brief. [ # 10 ] Appellants' brief due on or before 04/11/2022 for John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht. Appellee's brief due on or before 05/11/2022 for Chicago Parking Meters, LLC. Appellants' reply brief, if any, is due on or before 06/01/2022 for Appellants John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht. CMD [11] [7220519] [22-1166] (MM) [Entered: 03/02/2022 02:03 PM]
|
| Filing 10 Motion filed by Appellants Micah Uetricht and John Kaderbek to extend time to file appellant brief. [10] [7220431] [22-1166] (Geoghegan, Thomas) [Entered: 03/02/2022 10:56 AM] |
| Filing 9 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Ariel Olstein (for Stuart Chanen) for Appellants John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht. [9] [7219793] (L-No; E-Yes; R-No) [22-1166]--[Edited 02/28/2022 by MM to reflect addition of counsel.] (Olstein, Ariel) [Entered: 02/28/2022 10:58 AM] |
| Filing 8 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Ariel Olstein for Appellants John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht. [8] [7219784] (L-No; E-Yes; R-No) [22-1166]--[Edited 03/01/2022 by FP to reflect that atty. Olstein is added to the docket.] (Olstein, Ariel) [Entered: 02/28/2022 10:50 AM] |
| Filing 7 Docketing Statement filed by Appellants Micah Uetricht and John Kaderbek. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [7] [7219287] [22-1166] (Geoghegan, Thomas) [Entered: 02/24/2022 01:00 PM] |
| Filing 6 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Robert Y. Sperling for Appellee Chicago Parking Meters, LLC. [6] [7219041] (L-No; E-Yes; R-No) [22-1166]--[Edited 02/23/2022 by PS - to reflect the addition of counsel.] (Sperling, Robert) [Entered: 02/23/2022 01:29 PM] |
| Filing 5 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Joseph L. Motto for Appellee Chicago Parking Meters, LLC. [5] [7219040] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [22-1166]--[Edited 02/23/2022 by PS - to reflect the addition of counsel.] (Motto, Joseph) [Entered: 02/23/2022 01:27 PM] |
| Filing 4 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Conor Reidy for Appellee Chicago Parking Meters, LLC. [4] [7219039] (L-No; E-Yes; R-No) [22-1166]--[Edited 02/23/2022 by PS - to reflect the addition of counsel.] (Reidy, Conor) [Entered: 02/23/2022 01:24 PM] |
| Filing 3 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Dan K. Webb for Appellee Chicago Parking Meters, LLC. [3] [7219037] (L-No; E-Yes; R-No) [22-1166] (Webb, Dan) [Entered: 02/23/2022 01:19 PM] |
|
Filing 2
ORDER: Appellants John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht is directed to file the overdue Docketing Statement within 14 days from the date of this Rule to Show Cause. Docketing statement response due for Appellants John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht by 03/02/2022. [2] [7217544] [22-1166] (AD) [Entered: 02/16/2022 09:19 AM]
|
| Filing 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee paid. Docketing Statement due for Appellants John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht by 02/08/2022. Transcript information sheet due by 02/16/2022. Appellants' brief due on or before 03/14/2022 for John Kaderbek and Micah Uetricht. [1] [7214927] [22-1166] (MM) [Entered: 02/02/2022 12:16 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.
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.
