BCL-Ruby Development San Marcos LLC v. Gary et al
| BCL-RUBY DEVELOPMENT SAN MARCOS LLC |
| Grant Gary and Stephen Coslik |
| 1:2023cv04021 |
| June 23, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Virginia M Kendall |
| Contract: Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by BCL-Ruby Development San Marcos LLC. Stephen Coslik waiver sent on 7/12/2023, answer due 9/11/2023; Grant Gary waiver sent on 7/12/2023, answer due 9/11/2023. (Blackman, Gary) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff BCL-Ruby Development San Marcos LLC by Jason Brett Hirsh (Hirsh, Jason) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Initial status hearing set for 9/21/2023 at 9:00 a.m. Joint Status Report due by 9/18/2023. 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. Virtual hearings must be pre-approved by the Court. If you need to appear virtually, send the attached form to Judge Kendall's courtroom deputy. The courtroom deputy will inform you as to whether your request has been approved. Mailed notice (Attachments: #1 Virtual Hearing Request Form) (lk, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Stephen Coslik, Grant Gary (axk,) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (jcc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jcc, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff BCL-RUBY DEVELOPMENT SAN MARCOS LLC by Jamie Lynn Burns (Burns, Jamie) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Burns, Jamie) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by BCL-RUBY DEVELOPMENT SAN MARCOS LLC; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20768097.(Burns, Jamie) |
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.
