RBAHTDSR LLC v. Project 64 LLC et al
| RBAHTDSR LLC |
| Project 64 LLC, John M. Wiertel and Geoffrey Graham |
| 1:2019cv01280 |
| July 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Richard G Andrews |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
SO ORDERED, re #10 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Amend Briefing Schedule (*Reset Briefing Schedule: re #5 MOTION to Dismiss. Reply Brief due 9/19/2019). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 9/6/2019. (nms)
|
| Filing 10 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME Defendants' Reply Brief to September 19, 2019 - filed by Geoffrey Graham, Project 64 LLC, John M. Wiertel. (Bradley, Paul) |
| Pro Hac Vice Attorney Thomas J. Connick for Geoffrey Graham, Project 64 LLC,and John M. Wiertel added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (mal) |
| Filing 9 APPENDIX re #8 Answering Brief in Opposition, by RBAHTDSR LLC. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Earle, Scott) Modified on 8/29/2019 (nms). |
| Filing 8 ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re #5 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by RBAHTDSR LLC.Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 9/5/2019. (Attachments: #2 Certificate of Service, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2)(Earle, Scott) Modified on 8/29/2019 (nms). |
| CORRECTING ENTRY: The appendix filed as an attachment to D.I. #8 has been removed. Briefs and appendices are not to be filed together. Counsel is to refile the appendix accordingly. (nms) |
| Filing 7 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME Response Brief to the Motion to Dismiss to August 30, 2019 - filed by RBAHTDSR LLC. (Earle, Scott) |
|
SO ORDERED, re #7 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to file Response Brief to the Motion to Dismiss to August 30, 2019 (*Reset Briefing Schedule: re #5 MOTION to Dismiss. Answering Brief due 8/30/2019). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/6/2019. (nms)
|
| Filing 6 OPENING BRIEF in Support re #5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Geoffrey Graham, Project 64 LLC, John M. Wiertel.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 8/16/2019. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Bradley, Paul) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Dismiss - filed by Geoffrey Graham, Project 64 LLC, John M. Wiertel. (Bradley, Paul) |
|
SO ORDERED, re #4 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Thomas J. Connick, filed by John M. Wiertel, Geoffrey Graham, Project 64 LLC. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/17/2019. (nms)
|
| Case Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. Please include the initials of the Judge (RGA) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Thomas J. Connick - filed by Geoffrey Graham, Project 64 LLC, John M. Wiertel. (Attachments: #1 Certification, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bradley, Paul) |
| Filing 3 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Project 64 LLC. (Bradley, Paul) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (amf) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL and copies of documents from DE Superior Court, Case Number S19C-05-021 ESB (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0311-2681817)- filed by John M. Wiertel, Geoffrey Graham, and Project 64 LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Certificate of Service, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(amf) |
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.
