Plumley v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. et al
| Patrick Plumley |
| Paul Gabos, Peggy B. Scott, Gavin Southwell, John A. Fichthorn, Paul E. Avery, Benefytt Technologies, Inc., Daylight Beta Corp., Robert Murley, Anthony J. Barkett and Daylight Beta Parent Corp. |
| 1:2020cv01017 |
| July 28, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Colm F Connolly |
| Securities/Commodities |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CASE CLOSED per D.I. #3 . (nmf) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Patrick Plumley (Long, Brian) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (nms) |
| No Summons Issued. (mal) |
| Filing 2 Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mal) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 - filed with Jury Demand against Paul E. Avery, Anthony J. Barkett, Benefytt Technologies, Inc., Daylight Beta Corp., Daylight Beta Parent Corp., John A. Fichthorn, Paul Gabos, Robert Murley, Peggy B. Scott, Gavin Southwell - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number ADEDC-3092237.) - filed by Patrick Plumley. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Plaintiff, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(mal) |
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.
