Traffic Tech Inc. v. TransGuardian Inc. et al
| Traffic Tech Inc. |
| TransGuardian Inc., Jim Moseley, Bruce Braviroff and Madeline Moseley |
| 1:2018cv05641 |
| August 17, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| XX Outside US |
| Virginia M Kendall |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 11, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 ANSWER to amended complaint , COUNTERCLAIM filed by TransGuardian Inc. against All Plaintiffs . by TransGuardian Inc.(Grabenstein, Casey) |
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Defendants' Unopposed Motion for extension of time to answer and otherwise plead #18 is granted. Answer and responsive pleading shall be filed by 10/11/2018. Motion hearing set for 9/27/2018 is stricken. Mailed notice (lk, ) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Motion by Casey T. Grabenstein for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer #18 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/27/2018 at 09:00 AM. (Grabenstein, Casey) |
| Filing 18 MOTION by Defendant TransGuardian Inc. for extension of time to file answer (Grabenstein, Casey) |
| Filing 17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Bruce Braviroff, Jim Moseley, Madeline Moseley, TransGuardian Inc. by Casey T. Grabenstein (Grabenstein, Casey) |
| Filing 16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Traffic Tech Inc. as to Jim Moseley on 9/20/2018, answer due 10/11/2018. (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Traffic Tech Inc. as to Madeline Moseley on 9/20/2018, answer due 10/11/2018. (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Traffic Tech Inc. as to Bruce Braviroff on 9/6/2018, answer due 9/27/2018 (Hertz, Sarah) (Docket Text Modified by Clerks Office) (ew, ). |
| ALIAS Summons Issued as to Defendants James Moseley, Madlene Moseley. (pj, ) |
| Filing 13 SUMMONS Returned Unexecuted by Traffic Tech Inc. as to Madeline Moseley. (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Unexecuted by Traffic Tech Inc. as to Madeline Moseley. (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Returned Unexecuted by Traffic Tech Inc. as to Jim Moseley. (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 10 Return of Service Returned Unexecuted to Transguardian, Inc. by Traffic Tech Inc. on September 6, 2018 (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 9 Return of Service served on Transguardian Inc. by Traffic Tech Inc. (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Traffic Tech Inc. by William R. Irwin (Irwin, William) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Traffic Tech Inc. by Sarah R Hertz (Hertz, Sarah) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Traffic Tech Inc. by Timothy Lawrence Krippner (Krippner, Timothy) |
| Filing 5 AMENDED complaint by Traffic Tech Inc. against All Defendants (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Krippner, Timothy) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Bruce Braviroff, James Moseley, Madelene Moseley, TransGuardian Inc. (pj, ) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Initial status hearing set for 11/28/2018 at 9:00 a.m. Joint Status Report due by 11/20/2018. The parties are directed to Judge Kendall's web page found at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov for information about the Initial Status Report and for information regarding all standing orders for cases on Judge Kendall's docket. The parties shall follow all of the standing orders for Judge Kendall and all Local Rules which can be found at the same web page. For the Initial Status Report, the parties are to report on the following: (1) Possibility of settlement in the case; (2) if no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary (with specific dates) to get the case ready for trial; 3) whether the parties jointly consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. At the Initial Status Hearing, the Parties shall be prepared to inform the Court about the extent of monetary damages in order for the Court to address the proportionality of discovery as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Lead counsel is directed to appear at this status hearing. Mailed notice (lk, ) |
| Filing 3 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. (ew, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Krippner, Timothy) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Traffic Tech Inc.; JURY DEMAND. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-14840485. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit EXHIBIT A-ECOMMERCE AGREEMENT, #2 Exhibit EXHIBIT B-CHECK, #3 Exhibit EXHIBIT C-LETTER)(Krippner, Timothy) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. (jjr, ) |
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 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.
