All In One Corp. v. Department of Agriculture
| All In One Corp. and All In One Corp. doing business as Express Stop |
| United States Department of Agriculture and Department of Agriculture |
| 3:2022cv00659 |
| March 31, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Mark A Beatty |
| Agriculture Acts |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 NOTICE: All parties have consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty is ASSIGNED to conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. All future documents must bear case number 3:22-cv-659-MAB. Any District Judge previously assigned will no longer be assigned to this case. (kls3)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
| Filing 12 FINAL CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (Hanna, Adam) Modified as FINAL and unsealed on 5/25/2022 (kls3). |
| Filing 11 NOTICE FROM CLERK Instructing Department of Agriculture to file Notice and Consent to Proceed Before A Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257, within 21 days of this Notice, you must file the attached form indicating your consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent. A link regarding the magistrate judges in this district is attached for your convenience: #http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/BenefitsofConsent.pdf. Consent/Non-Consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form sent to Department of Agriculture on 5/12/2022. Consent due by 6/2/2022 (tba) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam E. Hanna on behalf of Department of Agriculture (Hanna, Adam) |
| Filing 9 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (Kanzler, Jay) Unsealed on 5/25/2022 (kls3). |
| Filing 8 NOTICE: All In One Corp. was directed to file the attached form regarding consenting or declining to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The time for doing so has now passed, and the Court has not received the form. As required by Administrative Order No. 257, All In One Corp. shall return the form within 7 days or face possible sanctions. Consent due by 5/2/2022 (tba) |
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to Department of Agriculture. Original mailed to Attorney Jay L. Kanzler. (tba) |
| Filing 6 Summons Requested. (Attachments: #1 Summons, #2 Summons)(Kanzler, Jay) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE by All In One Corp. Entry of Appearance (Kanzler, Jay) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF MODIFICATION re #1 Complaint filed by All In One Corp.. Filer incorrectly listed the complaint against themselves instead of against the Defendant. Docket entry has been updated to list the correct Defendant the complaint is against. No further action is required by the filer in relation to this notification. (tba)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ACTION re #1 Complaint filed by All In One Corp.. See Local Rule 83.1(f). In all cases filed in, removed to, or transferred to this court, all attorneys, including government attorneys, shall file a written entry of appearance before addressing the court. Attorney Jay L. Kanzler does not have a Notice of Appearance on file in this case. (tba)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This case has been randomly assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257. The parties are advised that their consent is required if the assigned Magistrate Judge is to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. As set forth in Administrative Order No. 257, each party will be required to file a Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form indicating consent or nonconsent to the jurisdiction of the assigned Magistrate Judge. If all parties do not consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction, the case will be randomly assigned to a district judge for all further proceedings and the parties cannot later consent to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge. The parties are further advised that they are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. Within 21 days of this Notice, the following party or parties must file the attached form indicating consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent: All In One Corp.. A link regarding the magistrate judges in this district is attached for your convenience: #http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/BenefitsofConsent.pdf. All future documents must bear case number 22-cv-659-MAB. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. Consent due by 4/22/2022 (tba) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Department of Agriculture ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AILSDC-4749221.), filed by All In One Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kanzler, Jay) Modified on 4/1/2022 (tba). |
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 Southern 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.
