Bemus Point Dental, LLC v. Delta Dental Insurance Company et al
Bemus Point Dental, LLC |
DeltaCare USA, Delta Dental of Wisconsin, Delta Dental of Rhode Island, Delta Dental of Idaho, Delta Dental of Maryland, Inc, Delta Dental Plans Association, Delta Dental of the District of Columbia, Delta Dental of Alaska, Delta Dental of Colorado, Hawaii Dental Service, Delta Dental of Connecticut, Delta Dental of Nebraska, Delta Dental Insurance Company - Nevada, Delta Dental of Virginia, Delta USA Inc., Delta Dental of Delaware, Delta Dental of Wyoming, Delta Dental of Oklahoma, Delta Dental of Massachusetts, Delta Dental Insurance Company - Texas, Delta Dental of Arizona, Delta Dental of Michigan, Delta Dental of Kansas, Delta Dental of New Mexico, Delta Dental of Florida, Delta Dental of California, Delta Dental Insurance Company - Louisiana, Delta Dental of North Carolina, Delta Dental of Pennsylvania, Delta Dental of West Virginia, Delta Dental of Iowa, Delta Dental of Illinois, Delta Dental Insurance Company - Georgia, Delta Dental Insurance Company, Delta Dental of Missouri, Delta Dental of North Dakota, Delta Dental Insurance Company Alabama, Delta Dental of Indiana, Delta Dental of New Jersey, Delta Dental of Tennessee, Delta Dental of South Carolina, Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont), Delta Dental of Minnesota, Delta Dental of Oregon, Delta Dental of South Dakota, Delta Dental of Washington, Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Delta Dental Insurance Company - Mississippi, Delta Dental of Ohio, Delta Dental of Arkansas, Delta Dental of New York, Delta Dental of Kentucky, Delta Dental Insurance Company - Montana and Delta Dental Insurance Company - Utah |
1:2019cv07362 |
November 6, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
Elaine E Bucklo |
Edmond E Chang |
Anti-Trust |
15 U.S.C. § 1 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 26, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 16 MOTION for Transfer of Related Actions to the Northern District of Illinois for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings pursuant to 28 USC Section 1407. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit) (td, ) |
Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Motion to appear pro hac vice #14 is granted. Mailed notice (reg) |
Filing 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16434384. (Katcher, Elana) |
Filing 13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bemus Point Dental, LLC by Matthew Powers McCahill (McCahill, Matthew) |
Filing 12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bemus Point Dental, LLC by Gary L. Specks (Specks, Gary) |
Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bemus Point Dental, LLC by Robert N. Kaplan (Kaplan, Robert) |
Filing 10 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo for all further proceedings. Honorable Edmond E. Chang no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 11/12/2019.(las, ) |
Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang:Applications #7 #8 by Robert N. Kaplan and Matthew McCahill to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff are granted. Emailed notice (slb, ) |
Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16422860. (McCahill, Matthew) |
Filing 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16422825. (Kaplan, Robert) |
Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang:Initial status hearing set for 01/07/2020 at 9 a.m. The parties must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report requirements at least 3 business days before the initial status hearing. Plaintiff must still file the report even if not all Defendants have been served or have responded to requests to craft a joint report. Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel must read them anew even if counsel has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases.Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (slb, ) |
Filing 5 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 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bemus Point Dental, LLC by Athena Diane Dalton (Dalton, Athena) |
Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bemus Point Dental, LLC by Leonid Feller (Feller, Leonid) |
Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Feller, Leonid) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Bemus Point Dental, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16415933.(Feller, Leonid) |
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. 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
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.