Montgomery v. Hopper et al
| M. Scott Montgomery |
| Ronnie Hopper and Sharon Hopper |
| 1:2024cv00228 |
| January 23, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Maritza Dominguez Braswell |
| Susan Prose |
| Nina Y Wang |
| Contract: Other |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1109 Breach of Fiduciary Duties |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 STATEMENT Plaintiff's Rule 7.1 Disclosures by Plaintiff M. Scott Montgomery. (Montgomery, M.) |
Filing 11
ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE DEADLINES. Proposed Scheduling Order due 3/25/2024. By Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell on 2/27/2024. (evaug)
|
| Filing 10 LETTER from Clerk of Court re: Service of Process of #1 Complaint. (Attachments: #1 Summons Ronnie Hopper, #2 Summons Sharon Hopper, #3 Rule 4, #4 Magistrate Judge Consent Form)(cmadr, ) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER REFERRING CASE: This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell for non-dispositive matters. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, and (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions. Court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the request of the parties by motion, this Court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge, at her discretion, may convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. Counsel for the Parties and all counsel who may later enter an appearance shall review and familiarize themselves with the undersigned's Practice Standards, as well as the Practice Standards of the assigned Magistrate Judge. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 02/23/2024. Text Only Entry (nywlc5, )
|
|
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff filed this case on January 23, 2024, invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. [Doc. #1 at 2]. Under Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[i]n an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), a party... must, unless the court orders otherwise, file a disclosure statement" that "name[s]--and identif[ies] the citizenship of--every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor." Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2). This disclosure statement is to be filed "when the action is filed in... federal court," Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2)(A), or at the time of the party's "first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court," Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, within seven days of each Party's appearance in this case, they SHALL FILE Rule 7.1 disclosure statements identifying their respective states of citizenship. The Court notes that an individual's citizenship is based on domicile, not residence. Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514 (10th Cir. 1972). By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 02/23/2024. Text Only Entry (nywlc5, )
|
| Filing 7 CASE REASSIGNED. This case was originally assigned incorrectly, therefore has been randomly reassigned to Judge Nina Y. Wang and drawn to Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell. All future pleadings should be designated as 24-cv-00228-NYW. (Text Only Entry) (ccuen, ) |
| Filing 6 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (ccuen, ) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER DRAWING CASE by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 2/21/2024. This case is randomly reassigned to Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella for all further proceedings. All future pleadings should be designated as 24-cv-00228-KAS. (ccuen, )
|
| Filing 4 Filing fee: $ 405.00, receipt number 109632. (jrobe, ) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CURE DEFICIENCIES by Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 01/25/2024. it isORDERED that Plaintiff cure the deficiencies designated above within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Any papers that Plaintiff files in response to this order must include the civil action number on this order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall either pay the applicable filing fee or complete and submit the current court-approved Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form), which is available, along with the applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to cure all of the designated deficiencies within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the action will be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal shall be without prejudice. (jrobe, )
|
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry (efoga, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ronnie Hopper, Sharon Hopper, filed by M. Scott Montgomery. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(efoga, ) |
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
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.
