Kroll v. Cozen O'Connor PC
Plaintiff: Stanley E. Kroll
Defendant: Cozen O'Connor PC
Case Number: 1:2019cv03919
Filed: June 11, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: John Z Lee
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 10, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 9, 2019 Filing 24 RESPONSE by Stanley E. Kroll to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Cozen O'Connor PC #15 (Caruso, Carmen)
August 5, 2019 Filing 23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss #21 is granted; response due by 8/9/19; reply due by 8/23/19. No appearance is required on the motion.Mailed notice (ca, )
August 2, 2019 Filing 22 NOTICE of Motion by Carmen David Caruso for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply #21 before Honorable John Z. Lee on 8/7/2019 at 09:00 AM. (Caruso, Carmen)
August 2, 2019 Filing 21 MOTION by Plaintiff Stanley E. Kroll for extension of time to file response/reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Caruso, Carmen)
July 11, 2019 Filing 20 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) , filed by Plaintiff Stanley E. Kroll. (Caruso, Carmen)
July 11, 2019 Filing 19 CERTIFICATE by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations under MIDPP (Whitner, William)
July 11, 2019 Filing 18 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Stanley E. Kroll by William B. Whitner (Whitner, William)
July 10, 2019 Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss #15 shall be due by 8/2/19; reply due by 8/16/19. No appearance is required on the motion.Mailed notice (ca, )
July 9, 2019 Filing 16 NOTICE of Motion by Corey Thomas Hickman for presentment of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim #15 before Honorable John Z. Lee on 7/16/2019 at 09:00 AM. (Hickman, Corey)
July 9, 2019 Filing 15 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Cozen O'Connor PC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Hickman, Corey)
June 28, 2019 Filing 14 Certification by Attorney Re MIDP by Stanley E. Kroll (Stevens, James)
June 27, 2019 Filing 13 CERTIFICATE by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations under MIDPP (Caruso, Carmen)
June 17, 2019 Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Initial status hearing set for 8/15/19 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, )
June 17, 2019 Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time until July 9, 2019 to answer #9 is granted. No appearance is required on the motion.Mailed notice (ca, )
June 14, 2019 Filing 10 NOTICE of Motion by Corey Thomas Hickman for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer #9 before Honorable John Z. Lee on 6/19/2019 at 09:00 AM. (Hickman, Corey)
June 14, 2019 Filing 9 MOTION by Defendant Cozen O'Connor PC for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead to Complaint (Hickman, Corey)
June 12, 2019 Filing 8 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. (nsf, )
June 12, 2019 Filing 7 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to counsel of record. (nsf, )
June 12, 2019 Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Stanley E. Kroll by James C. Stevens, Jr (Stevens, James)
June 12, 2019 Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Stanley E. Kroll by Carmen David Caruso (Caruso, Carmen)
June 12, 2019 Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cozen O'Connor PC by Jack J. Carriglio (Carriglio, Jack)
June 11, 2019 Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cozen O'Connor PC by Corey Thomas Hickman (Hickman, Corey)
June 11, 2019 Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Hickman, Corey)
June 11, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, case number (2019L005138) filed by Cozen O'Connor PC Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-15918404. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Brian Flaherty, #2 Exhibit B - Complaint, #3 Exhibit C - Amended Complaint)(Hickman, Corey)
June 11, 2019 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Z. Lee. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jn, )

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: Kroll v. Cozen O'Connor PC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cozen O'Connor PC
Represented By: Corey Thomas Hickman
Represented By: Jack J. Carriglio
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 ]
Plaintiff: Stanley E. Kroll
Represented By: James C. Stevens, Jr.
Represented By: William B. Whitner
Represented By: Carmen David Caruso
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.


Why Is My Information Online?