Vita Law Offices, P.C. v. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. et al
| Vita Law Offices, P.C. |
| Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Heidi M. Silton |
| 1:2025cv23576 |
| August 8, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Rodney Smith |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 28, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 64 RESPONSE in Opposition re #63 MOTION TO DISMISS #62 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. Replies due by 2/4/2026. (Murray, John) |
| Filing 63 MOTION TO DISMISS #62 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. Responses due by 1/28/2026. (Lewis, Jordan) |
| Filing 62 First AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff against All Defendants, filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A-Amended Complaint, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B-Amended Complaint, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C-Amended Complaint, #4 Exhibit Exhibit D-Amended Complaint)(Murray, John) |
Filing 61
ORDER GRANTING #51 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS: Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint but must do so on or before December 31, 2025. Failure to cure the Complaint by December 31, 2025, will result in a final Order of dismissal. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 12/22/2025. See attached document for full details. (wce)
|
|
Filing 60
PAPERLESS ORDER granting #53 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorney(s) Christopher Carventes. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 12/12/2025. (eps)
|
| Filing 59 Defendant's REPLY in Support of Motion re #51 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . filed by Heidi M. Silton. (Lewis, Jordan) |
| Filing 58 RESPONSE in Opposition re #51 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. Replies due by 9/23/2025. (Murray, John) |
| Filing 57 Plaintiff's Corporate Disclosure Statement by Vita Law Offices, P.C. (Murray, John) |
| Filing 56 Notice and NON-CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge . Filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C. (Murray, John) |
| Filing 55 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 26(f) by Vita Law Offices, P.C. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiff, #2 Text of Proposed Order Defendant)(Murray, John) |
| Filing 54 Defendant's Corporate Disclosure Statement by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton (Lewis, Jordan) |
| Filing 53 Renewed MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Christopher Carvantes. Filing Fee $ 250.00 Amended/Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filed - Filing Fees Previously Paid. See #50 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. Responses due by 9/18/2025. (Attachments: #1 Certification, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Murray, John) |
|
Filing 52
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #50 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorney(s) Christopher Carventes of Attorney(s) Christopher M. Cervantes representing Vita Law Offices, P.C. (Plaintiff) Notice of Termination delivered by US Mail to Christopher Cervantes. Local counsel did not consent to electronically serve all documents and things that may be served electronically. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 9/4/2025. (eps)
|
| Attorney Christopher M. Cervantes representing Vita Law Offices, P.C. (Plaintiff) Activated. (pt) |
| Filing 51 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. Responses due by 9/16/2025. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Teti Declaration, #2 Exhibit Silton Email, #3 Exhibit Vita Email, #4 Exhibit HMS Email, #5 Exhibit Vita Letter)(Lewis, Jordan) |
| Filing 50 Plaintiff's MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Christopher Carvantes. Filing Fee $ 250.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-18749105 by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. Responses due by 9/12/2025. (Attachments: #1 Certification Good Standing)(Murray, John) |
|
Filing 49
ORDER REQUIRING JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT, CERTIFICATES OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS: By September 5, 2025, the parties shall:Prepare and file a Joint Scheduling Report, as required by Local Rule 16.1. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 8/29/2025. See attached document for full details. (wce)
|
| Filing 48 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John Pritchard Murray on behalf of Vita Law Offices, P.C.. Attorney John Pritchard Murray added to party Vita Law Offices, P.C.(pty:pla). (Murray, John) |
|
Filing 47
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #45 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint by September 2, 2025. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 8/26/2025. (eps)
|
|
Filing 46
PAPERLESS ORDER granting #43 and #44 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Attorney(s) Stephen J. Teti and Kristie LaSalle. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 8/25/2025. (eps)
|
| Filing 45 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (Lewis, Jordan) |
| Filing 44 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Kristie LaSalle. Filing Fee $ 250.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-18718547 by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. Responses due by 9/3/2025. (Attachments: #1 Certification, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Jordan) |
| Filing 43 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Stephen J. Teti. Filing Fee $ 250.00 Receipt # AFLSDC-18717796 by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. Responses due by 9/3/2025. (Attachments: #1 Certification Teti Certification, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Jordan) |
| Filing 42 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jordan Matthew Lewis on behalf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. Attorney Jordan Matthew Lewis added to party Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.(pty:dft), Attorney Jordan Matthew Lewis added to party Heidi M. Silton(pty:dft). (Lewis, Jordan) |
|
Filing 41
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Judge Rodney Smith for all further proceedings, accepted and signed on 8/15/2025. Judge Beth Bloom no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 8/15/2025. See attached document for full details. (wce)
|
| Filing 40 Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Christopher M. Cervantes, Kristie A. LaSalle and Stephen J. Teti, mailing date August 11, 2025, (pt) |
| Filing 39 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Beth Bloom. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (jua) |
| Filing 38 Case transferred in from Massachusetts; Case Number 1:25-cv-11518. Electronic file including transfer order and docket sheet received. .(jua). |
| Filing 37 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Defendants motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Dkt. #6 ) is GRANTED. No costs will be awarded.For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Accordingly, a court must determine first whether the case might have been brought in the suggested transferee district and, if so, whether convenience and the interest of justice favor transfer. Wiley v. Gerber Prods. Co., 667 F. Supp. 2d 171, 172 (D. Mass. 2009). Here, the Court finds that venue would have been appropriate in the Southern District of Florida because it is a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2).Accordingly, the Court proceeds to a consideration of whether Defendants have carried their burden of establishing that transfer is warranted. Courts in this district ordinarily consider the following factors in determining the most appropriate forum under 1404(a): (1) the relative convenience of the parties, (2) the convenience of the witnesses and location of documents, (3) any connection between the forum and the issues, (4) the law to be applied, and (5) the state or public interests at stake. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharms., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 3d 385, 390 (D. Mass. 2022) (citing Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex, Inc., 249 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 (D. Mass. 2002)). Considerations of efficiency and judicial economy affect whether transfer is warranted. MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1300860, at *5 (D.N.H. Mar. 21, 2019).Although Plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to great weight, Deyesso v. Kaizen Mgmt., LLC, 2008 WL 5101269, at *6 (D. Mass. Nov. 25, 2008), on balance, the Court finds that the interests weigh in favor of transfer. In so concluding, the Court has observed, among other factors, that Judge Rodney Smith in the Southern District of Florida has retained jurisdiction, in Wood Mountain Fish LLC v. Mowi ASA, No. 19-cv-22128 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023), Dkt. 352, over any suit, action, proceeding, or dispute arising out of or relating to this Settlement Agreement or the applicability of the Settlement Agreement, or relating to the award of fees and expenses and any allocation thereof. Id. 24 (emphases added). Here, the Court concludes that this action, which concerns a referral fee, relates to the award of fees and expenses and any allocation thereof. See, e.g., Dkt. 1-3 (Compl.) 1 (This action arises from Defendants wrongful refusal to honor a referral fee agreement entitling Plaintiff to 15% of the net attorneys fees recovered in the Indirect Purchaser North Atlantic Farmed Salmon Antitrust Litigation. . . Case No. 1:19-cv-22128-RS, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.); id. 5 (Beginning with a coercive fee allocation proposal on April 5, 2023, Defendants have withheld Plaintiffs rightful share, misrepresenting facts and leveraging their control over fee disbursements to pressure Plaintiff into relinquishing its claims.). Accordingly, [t]his cause is tightly intertwined with the [Settlement Agreement] recently issued by the District of [Florida] Court, which, as a matter of policy if for no other reason, should resolve this dispute. Willoughby v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 853 F. Supp. 174, 176 (D. Md. 1994). (MBM) |
| Filing 36 SUR-REPLY to Motion re #6 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida. filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Cervantes, #2 Exhibit Letter, #3 Exhibit Email)(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 35 DECLARATION re #34 Reply to Response to Motion of Stephen J. Teti by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1- Email, #2 Exhibit 2 - Article)(Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 34 REPLY to Response to #6 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida. filed by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 33 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #31 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Defendants shall file their reply brief no later than August 1, 2025, limited to 5 pages, and Plaintiff shall file a sur-reply brief, limited to 5 pages, no later than August 6, 2025. (BIB) |
| Filing 32 Opposition re #31 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida (ECF No. 6) filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex A - Emails)(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 31 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida (ECF No. 6) by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton.(Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 30 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the Response to Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #28 ), the Court will consider the matter resolved upon attorney Cervantes completion, within 60 days, of four continuing legal education (CLE) courses focusing on topics such as the use of AI in legal practice, Legal Ethics, and Federal Practice, or a combination thereof, and submission of a signed declaration to the Court detailing the course titles, the providers of the courses, the completion dates, and a brief summary (one to two paragraphs) of the key lessons learned from each course. Dkt. #28 at 11. (MBM) |
| Filing 29 Opposition re #6 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida. filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. (Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 28 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Christopher M. Cervantes, Esq., #2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Table of Authorities, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C - Table of Errors)(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 27 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court finds the Response to Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #26 ) inadequate. In his response, attorney Cervantes states that he identified all instances of inaccurate quotations, Dkt. #26 at 1, and that the errors pertained to only two cases, id. at 2, which attorney Cervantes identifies as Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990), and EQT Production Co. v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP, No. 6:15-cv-146, 2018 WL 6786065 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 26, 2018). As an initial matter, the citation that attorney Cervantes has provided for EQT appears to be incorrect; the Westlaw citation is 2018 WL 6790486, not 2018 WL 6786065. Second, when describing the nature of each error, attorney Cervantes categorizes most errors as Paraphrase/summarization, not verbatim, Dkt. #26 at 25, and he further describes the errors as limited to altered wording in thirteen (13) quotes or partial-quotes from valid authorities, id. at 7. That, however, understates the nature of the errors. In many instances, that is, it is far from apparent that the misquoted language in fact summarizes, paraphrases, or merely altered language that appears in the cited cases. See, e.g., Dkt. #26 at 4 (labeling the fabricated quotation of litigation-driven reassessments of an entity's internal structure" as a Paraphrase/summarization of language that actually appears in Carden). Third, attorney Cervantes failed to identify and disclose at least two readily apparent errors that are attributable to a third case, Pramco, LLC ex rel. CFSC Consortium, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina, Inc., 435 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2006). See Dkt. #20 at 3, 5 (ostensibly quoting Pramco for the proposition that the citizenship of an LLP is determined by considering the citizenship of all its partners).In light of these issues, attorney Cervantes is hereby ORDERED to submit a revised, supplemental response to the Courts original Order to Show Cause within seven days. A more candid admission of error will be appropriately considered. The revised response may include a suggestion of an appropriate sanction that takes into account the time the Court has expended in reviewing for inaccuracies not only the original briefs, but also the Response to Order to Show Cause. Cf.Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2025 WL 1195925, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2025) ([T]his entire matter has been a waste of the Court's resources. The Court undertook a review of the Reply with the intention of resolving a routine matter of civil procedure. Instead, the Court has been left with no choice but to survey the case law regarding attorney misconduct relating to the use of AI.).(CAM) |
| Filing 26 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Decleration of Christopher M. Cervantes, Esq.)(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 25 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #24 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Transfer until July 22, 2025. (BIB) |
| Filing 24 MOTION for Extension of Time to July 22, 2025 to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer (DKT 6) (UNOPPOSED) by Vita Law Offices, P.C..(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 23 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: It has come to the Courts attention that Plaintiffs most recent brief, Dkt. #20 , appears to contain multiple fabricated quotes. For example, ostensibly quoting Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 196 (1990), Plaintiff states that [d]iversity jurisdiction is a federal question, and Carden explicitly rejected state-law classifications, stating that the relevant inquiry is not whether state law recognizes a particular individual as a partner, but rather whether that individual is a member of the unincorporated association for purposes of federal jurisdiction. Dkt. #20 at 5. The next sentence in Plaintiffs brief contains yet another fabricated quote, also attributed to Carden: The Court warned that allowing state-law distinctions would invite litigation-driven reassessments of an entitys internal structure. Id. (ostensibly quoting Carden, 494 U.S. at 197).Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, by July 14 at 12 p.m., why sanctions should not issue for its submission of a brief with false or misleading case citations. In its response, Plaintiff must list any other instances of inaccurate quotations that appear in any of the briefs that Plaintiff has submitted to the Court in this action, including any other inaccuracies contained within those briefs, such as citing to a fake case. For each false citation or quotation, including those listed by the Court above, Plaintiff must explain how that citation or quotation came to appear in a brief that it submitted to the Court.(MBM) |
| Filing 22 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. For substantially the reasons set forth by Defendants (see Dkts. #10 , #18 ), the Court concludes that Mr. Teti is an employee, not a partner, of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and that his citizenship is therefore irrelevant for purposes of a diversity analysis. Because there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and Defendants, the action will not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants motion to transfer, Dkt. #6 , is no longer stayed, and Plaintiffs opposition, if any, is due within 14 days of the date of this Order.(MBM) |
| Filing 21 STATE COURT Record Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. summons served on 5/27/2025, answer due 6/17/2025; Heidi M. Silton summons served on 5/27/2025, answer due 6/17/2025.. (Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 20 RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by Vita Law Offices, P.C. re #19 Declaration, #18 Response Plaintiff's Sur-Reply to Defendants' Reply Brief (Dkt. 18)(Dkt. 19) pursuant to Electronic Order (Dkt. 17). (Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 19 DECLARATION re #18 Response of Kristie A. LaSalle in Support of Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Response to Order to Show Cause by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E)(LaSalle, Kristie) |
| Filing 18 Response by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton to 9 Order,,,,,,, Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Response to Order to Show Cause. (LaSalle, Kristie) |
| Filing 17 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed Dkts. #14 , #15 , and #16 , Defendants are hereby directed to file their reply brief by June 12. Plaintiff is directed to file any sur-reply brief by June 20. The motion to strike (Dkt. #16 ) is denied as moot. (MBM) |
| Filing 16 MOTION to Strike #15 Response by Vita Law Offices, P.C..(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 15 Supplemental Response by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton to #14 Reply to Response to Motion, #10 Response to Order to Show Cause, 9 Order,,,,,,, . (LaSalle, Kristie) |
| Filing 14 REPLY to Response to #12 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Defendants Submission to Order to Show Cause filed by Vita Law Offices, P.C.. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Memorandum of Law in Support)(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 13 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #12 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Submission to Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff's response shall be filed no later than 3:00 p.m. on June 9, 2025. (BIB) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Defendants Submission to Order to Show Cause by Vita Law Offices, P.C..(Cervantes, Christopher) |
| Filing 11 DECLARATION re #10 Response to Order to Show Cause Declaration of Kristie A. LaSalle by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Harry E. Gallaher, #2 Exhibit B)(LaSalle, Kristie) |
| Filing 10 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (LaSalle, Kristie) |
| Filing 9 Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Defendants have removed based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. #1 . Defendants state that Defendant Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. (Lockridge) is a professional limited liability corporation. Id. para. 6. However, Lockridges name suggests that it is, in fact, a professional limited liability partnership (P.L.L.P.). For diversity purposes, the citizenship of a partnership is determined by the citizenship of all of its members. Pramco, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina, Inc., 435 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir. 2006). Defendants state that Attorney Teti, who appears to be a citizen of Massachusetts, is a non-equity partner at Lockridge, Dkt. #8 , and appear to contend that Attorney Tetis non-equity status exempts him from the partnerships citizenship analysis, Dkt. #1 paras. 1113. However, Defendants provide no authority for this proposition and no facts that might be relevant to the analysis. Cf. EQT Prod. Co. v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP, 2018 WL 6790486, at *3 & n.1 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 26, 2018); Signicast, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 920 F. Supp. 2d 967, 96970 (E.D. Wis. 2013). Accordingly, Defendants are hereby ordered to SHOW CAUSE by June 6, 2025, for why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of Attorney Tetis apparent Massachusetts citizenship. Defendants motion to transfer, Dkt. #6 , is hereby STAYED until the Court resolves the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.(MBM) |
| Filing 8 DECLARATION re #6 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida. Declaration of Stephen J. Teti by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Heidi M. Silton)(Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 7 MEMORANDUM in Support re #6 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida. filed by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton. (Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Florida. by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton.(Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 5 Certified Copy of Notice of Removal Provided to Defense Counsel by Email. Counsel who filed an appearance in this case prior to its removal must refer to #Local Rule 83.5.3(f) Practice by Persons Not Members of the Bar on how to proceed as an attorney in this court. General Information for Attorneys can be found #here. (MBM) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristie A. LaSalle on behalf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton (LaSalle, Kristie) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen J Teti on behalf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton (Teti, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Brian E. Murphy assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal. (NMC) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Heidi M. Silton ( Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-11033524 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Category Form, #3 State Action Documents)(Teti, Stephen) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern 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.
