Nuttall v. DeYoung
| Edward Nuttall |
| Leonard DeYoung |
| 1:2018cv07521 |
| November 13, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Z Lee |
| P.I.: Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MEMORANDUM by Edward Nuttall in support of motion for leave to file #11 (Attachments: #1 Notice of Filing Notice of Filing Memo)(Krzak, Michael) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Motion by Michael Sean Krzak for presentment of motion for leave to file #11 before Honorable John Z. Lee on 1/17/2019 at 09:00 AM. (Krzak, Michael) |
| Filing 11 MOTION by Plaintiff Edward Nuttall for leave to file First Amended Complaint (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Krzak, Michael) |
| Filing 10 CERTIFICATE Certification by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations Under Mandatory initial Discovery Pilot Project (Krzak, Michael) |
| Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Edward Nuttall by Michael Sean Krzak (Krzak, Michael) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Initial status hearing set for 1/23/19 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, ) |
| Filing 7 EMAILED Notice of removal letter to Maritsha Garcia (las, ) |
| Filing 6 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. (las, ) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Leonard DeYoung by Matthew A. Reddy (Reddy, Matthew) |
| Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Leonard DeYoung by Quinn Patrick Donnelly (Donnelly, Quinn) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Leonard DeYoung by Richard M. Waris (Waris, Richard) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Waris, Richard) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Cook County, case number (2018 L 011147) filed by Leonard DeYoung Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-15174656. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - C)(Waris, Richard) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Z. Lee. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (acm) |
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
| Search for this case: Nuttall v. DeYoung | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Edward Nuttall | |
| Represented By: | Maritsha Garcia |
| Represented By: | Michael Sean Krzak |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Leonard DeYoung | |
| Represented By: | Richard M. Waris |
| Represented By: | Matthew A. Reddy |
| Represented By: | Quinn Patrick Donnelly |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
