Essenmacher v. Invesco Fund Group, et al
| Cynthia L. Essenmacher |
| Invesco Fund Groups Inc., Amvescap PLC, AIM Management Group Inc., Raymond Cunningham, Timothy Miller, Thomas Kolbe, Michael Legoski, Invesco Dynamics Fund and Invesco Funds |
| 1:2004cv00188 |
| March 29, 2004 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Wilmington Office |
| Sue L Robinson |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. § 0080 Investment Companies |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 18, 2004. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Acknowledgment of Receipt of certified copy of the docket sheet by the United States District Court, District of MD on 8/16/04 (fmt) |
| Interdistrict transfer to District of Maryland, Baltimore (rld) |
| Filing 11 Letter to F. Cannon, Clerk USDC-MD from Clerk, USDC-DE (Deputy DiMeo) enclosing certified copy of docket sheet per Judicial Panel on MDL's transfer order. (rld) |
| Filing 10 Letter to Clerk from USDC, Office of the Clerk, District of MD enclosing a certified copy of the Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Muli-district Litigation filed on 7/19/04, transferring the case to the District of MD; requesting forward only the docket sheet (fmt) |
| Filing 9 Letter from the United States of America Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation enclosing a copy of a conditional transfer order filed by the Panel; transmittal of the order has been stayed 15 days to give any party an opportunity to oppose the transfer; 15 day period has now elapsed, no opposition received (fmt) |
| Filing 8 Letter from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation enclosing a copy of a conditional transfer order filed 6/30/04 (fmt) |
| Filing 7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Michael Legoski 5/25/04 Answer due on 7/26/04 for Michael Legoski (fmt) |
| Filing 6 Return of undeliverable mail sent; return of D.I. # 4; returned to sender; returned from Maura K. Monaghan, Maeve O'Connor, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (fmt) |
| Filing 5 Return of undeliverable mail sent; Return of D.I. # 4; returned to sender, attempted not known; returned from John C. Canoni, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 1018 (fmt) |
So Ordered granting [4-1] stipulation re potential that this case could be transferred in connection with the MDL in "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation" in the Dist. of MD; defts. shall file their response to the complaint as determined by the Dist. of MD; should the MDL Panel determine not to transfer this case then the defts.' response to the complaint shall be due 60 days after the filing date of the MDL Panel's decision; stipulating defts. accept svc. of the complaint filed in this action, waive svc. of summons and do not require svc. in manner provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ( signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson ) Notice to all parties. (rld)
|
| Filing 4 STIPULATION and proposed order; re service of complaint (fmt) |
| Filing 3 Letter to Judge Robinson from M. O'Connor enclosing a signed stipulation and proposed order; deft. Michael Legoski's name appears on the signature block, he has neither signed nor consented to stipulation (fmt) |
| Filing 2 CASE assigned to Judge Sue L. Robinson . Notice to all parties. (rjb) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed. Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 135933 (mwm) |
| DEMAND for jury trial by Cynthia L. Essenmacher (mwm) |
| No summons issued (mwm) |
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 Delaware 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.
