McArthur v. Mercury Price Cutter
| Alexander McArthur |
| Mercury Price Cutter |
| 3:2021cv01007 |
| July 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 USM 285 forms together with Notice of Lawsuit/Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, Guide for Self-Represented Litigants, OPTD, Standing Protective Order, Electronic Filing Order, Order #6, Consent to electronic notice by pro se litigant, Motion by pro se litigant to participate in electronic filing, and all instructions mailed to IFP plaintiff to complete and return to Clerk's office. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #1 Complaint filed by Alexander McArthur, #4 Protective Order, 6 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis,, #5 Electronic Filing Order, #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Alexander McArthur, #3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 8/2/2021.(Oliver, T.) |
Filing 6
ORDER granting #2 McArthur's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. I have already granted McArthur's motions to proceed in forma pauperis in several of the cases that he has pending before me. See, e.g., Order, Doc. No. 6, McArthur v. 16 Lombard St. LLC, No. 3:20-cv-1007 (SRU). In this case, too, McArthur indicates that his only income is $783 per month in social security benefits. In contrast, McArthur indicates that he has at least $283 per month in obligations. At this stage, McArthur's allegations establish that he may proceed in this case in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 07/26/2021. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/22/2021. (Reis, Julia)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/22/2021. (Reis, Julia)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 9/20/2021. Discovery due by 1/21/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 2/25/2022. Signed by Clerk on 7/22/2021. (Reis, Julia) Modified docket text on 7/23/2021 (Reis, Julia).
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Alexander McArthur. (Reis, Julia) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Mercury Price Cutter, filed by Alexander McArthur. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Reis, Julia) |
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 Connecticut 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: McArthur v. Mercury Price Cutter | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Alexander McArthur | |
| 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: Mercury Price Cutter | |
| 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.
