AT&T Corp. v. Union Telephone Company
AT&T Corp. |
Union Telephone Company |
1:2021cv00545 |
February 23, 2021 |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Daniel D Domenico |
Scott T Varholak |
Commerce ICC Rates, Etc. |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 42 Interdistrict Transmittal of Documents via e-mail to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming at InterdistrictTransfer_WYD@wyd.uscourts.gov. Text Only Entry (athom, ) |
|
|
Filing 39 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Patrick Joseph Hickey on behalf of AT&T Corp. (Hickey, Patrick) |
|
Filing 37 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for AT&T Corp. and Request for Termination of Electronic Mail Notification by Counter Defendant AT&T Corp., Plaintiff AT&T Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Bowers, Kelsey) |
Filing 36 NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES: re: #35 Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel Pursuant to D.C.Colo.L. Atty R 5(B) filed by attorney Patrick Joseph Hickey. In order for attorney Kelsey Roe Bowers to be withdrawn as counsel of record, she must file a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. An attorney cannot be withdrawn by a Notice of Withdraw and Substitution of Counsel. (Text Only Entry) (athom, ) |
Filing 35 NOTICE of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel Pursuant to D.C.Colo.L. Atty R 5(B) by Counter Defendant AT&T Corp., Plaintiff AT&T Corp. (Hickey, Patrick) |
|
Filing 33 MINUTE ENTRY for Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 2/22/2022. This matter has been stayed pending resolution of the Motion to Transfer [Doc. No. 23] which has not been referred to this court. A further Status Conference set for 4/19/2022 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. FTR: 402. (morti, ) |
|
|
|
|
Filing 28 Unopposed MOTION to Reset Status Conference by Counter Defendant AT&T Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Franke, Paul) |
|
Filing 26 REPLY to Response to #23 MOTION to Transfer Case filed by Defendant Union Telephone Company. (Asay, Bruce) |
Filing 25 RESPONSE to #23 MOTION to Transfer Case filed by Plaintiff AT&T Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Franke, Paul) |
|
Filing 23 MOTION to Transfer Case by Defendant Union Telephone Company. (Asay, Bruce) |
|
|
Filing 20 Second MOTION to Stay Proceedings (Joint Motion) by Counter Defendant AT&T Corp., Plaintiff AT&T Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Bowers, Kelsey) |
Filing 19 ANSWER/REPLY to #9 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by AT&T Corp..(Franke, Paul) |
|
|
Filing 16 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff AT&T Corp.. (Franke, Paul) |
Filing 15 Joint MOTION to Stay by Defendant Union Telephone Company. (Asay, Bruce) |
Filing 14 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying Corporate Parent AT&T Corp. for AT&T Corp.. (Franke, Paul) |
|
Filing 12 CASE REASSIGNED pursuant to #11 Consent/Non-Consent to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. All parties do not consent. This case is randomly reassigned to Judge XXX Daniel D. Domenico. All future pleadings should be designated as 21-cv-00545-DDD. (Text Only Entry) (jgonz, ) |
Filing 11 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiff AT&T Corp. All parties do not consent.. (Franke, Paul) |
|
Filing 9 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, and, COUNTERCLAIM against AT&T Corp. by Union Telephone Company.(Asay, Bruce) |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Bruce S. Asay on behalf of Union Telephone CompanyAttorney Bruce S. Asay added to party Union Telephone Company(pty:dft) (Asay, Bruce) |
Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by AT&T Corp.. Union Telephone Company served on 3/29/2021, answer due 4/19/2021. (Franke, Paul) |
Filing 6 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (jgonz, ) |
Filing 5 SUMMONS REQUEST as to Union Telephone Company re #1 Complaint, by Plaintiff AT&T Corp.. (Franke, Paul) |
|
Filing 3 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. NO SUMMONS ISSUED. (jtorr, ) |
Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Text Only Entry. (jtorr, ) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT of AT&T Corp. against Union Telephone Company (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number 1082-7732244)Attorney Paul Richard Franke, III added to party AT&T Corp.(pty:pla), filed by AT&T Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Franke, Paul) |
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: AT&T Corp. v. Union Telephone Company | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: AT&T Corp. | |
Represented By: | Paul Richard Franke, III |
Represented By: | Kelsey Roe Bowers |
Represented By: | Patrick Joseph Hickey |
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: Union Telephone Company | |
Represented By: | Bruce S. 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 | [ 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.