SMS Management, LLC v. Pokrak

Plaintiff: SMS Management, LLC
Defendant: Steven J. Pokrak
Case Number: 1:2018cv05296
Filed: August 2, 2018
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Office: Chicago Office
County: XX US, Outside the State of IL
Presiding Judge: John Z Lee
Nature of Suit: Contract: Negotiable Instrument
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 27, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed#Document Text
September 27, 2018 10 NOTICE of Motion by Marshall J. Burt for presentment of motion for default judgment #9 before Honorable John Z. Lee on 9/10/2018 at 09:00 AM. (Burt, Marshall)
September 27, 2018 9 MOTION by Plaintiff SMS Management, LLC for default judgment as to Defendant Steven J. Pokrak (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1- Stewart Declaration, #2 Exhibit 2 - Proof of Service)(Burt, Marshall)
September 20, 2018 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Status hearing held on 9/20/18. Defendant is not present. Plaintiff's motion for default and default judgment shall be due by 9/27/18 and should be noticed up for presentment on 10/10/18 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the motion should be served on the Defendant. Status hearing set for 10/10/18 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ca, )
September 18, 2018 7 STATUS Report Initial by SMS Management, LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Citizenship of SMS MAnagement, LLC)(Burt, Marshall)
August 23, 2018 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by SMS Management, LLC as to Steven J. Pokrak on 8/18/2018, answer due 9/10/2018. (Burt, Marshall)
August 8, 2018 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Initial status hearing set for 9/20/18 at 9:00 a.m. Judge Lee participates in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project ("Project"). The Project applies to all cases filed on or after June 1, 2017, excluding the following: (1) cases exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B), (2) actions brought by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision, regardless of whether an attorney is recruited, (3) actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, (4) patent cases governed by the Local Patent Rules, and (5) cases transferred for consolidated administration in the District by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("Exempt Cases").For all cases to which the Project applies, Judge Lee requires (1) each attorney appearing on behalf of Plaintiff(s) to file a "Certification by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations Under Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" form within 28 days after the filing of the Complaint and (2) each attorney appearing on behalf of Defendant(s) to file the certification form with the Answer. The parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing. The certification form and initial status report requirements are set forth in Judge Lee's standing order regarding the "Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" available on the Courts website. For all Exempt Cases, the parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing in accordance with the standing order governing "Initial Status Report in Cases Exempt from the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" also available on the Court's website. Mailed notice (ca, )
August 3, 2018 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Steven J. Pokrak. (acm)
August 3, 2018 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (ph, )
August 2, 2018 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Z. Lee. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. (jjr, )
August 2, 2018 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff SMS Management, LLC, as successor in interest to SMS Financial XXII, LLC by Marshall J. Burt (Burt, Marshall)
August 2, 2018 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Burt, Marshall)
August 2, 2018 1 COMPLAINT filed by SMS Management, LLC, as successor in interest to SMS Financial XXII, LLC ; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-14774673. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - SMS Management, LLC - Citizenship Description, #2 Exhibit B1 to B-4 - Promissory Notes, #3 Exhibit C - Forbearance Agreement)(Burt, Marshall)

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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SMS Management, LLC v. Pokrak
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: SMS Management, LLC
Represented By: Marshall J. Burt
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Steven J. Pokrak
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 [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?