Clinton v. Ulrich et al
| Rebecca Clinton |
| Erik Ulrich, B.L. Duke, Inc. and M & K Quality Truck Sales of Indianapolis, LLC |
| 2:2024cv00023 |
| January 18, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| John E Martin |
| James T Moody |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 RULE 16 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held teleph 2/29/2024 before Magistrate Judge John E Martin. Pla appeared by atty David Gladish. Dft appeared with atty Jonathan Halm. All dates/ddl through close of discovery in parties' joint report #13 are approved and adopted herein. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings to be filed by 2/24/2025 by Pla, and 3/24/2025 by defense. Fact Discovery deadline is 7/24/2025. Expert Discovery deadline is 4/24/2026. Plaintiff expert witness disclosures and reports to be delivered to the defendant by 9/24/2025. Defendant expert witness disclosures and reports to be delivered to the plaintiff by 11/25/2025. Rule 26(e) supplements due 2/14/2026. Initial Disclosures to be exchanged by 4/6/2024. Mediator Selection Deadline is 7/24/2025. Mediation to be completed and report filed by 4/24/2026. Magistrate Consent forms ddl extended to 3/21/2024. (#FTR/JPK.)(smb) |
| Filing 13 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Gladish, David) |
| Filing 12 STATE COURT RECORD RECEIVED. State Court Case No. 45D02-2307-CT-000761. (Attachment: #1 Envelope)(jdb) |
| Filing 11 MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONSENT FORMS sent to all parties.. (smb) |
Filing 10
ORDER & NOTICE OF HEARING: Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 2/29/2024 11:30 AM Central before Magistrate Judge John E Martin. Proposed joint discovery plan in accordance with FRCP 26(f) due 2/23/2024.Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 1/23/2024. (smb)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER: Each party and each attorney in this case shall take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that is relevant to any claim or defense in this case, whether or not the information is admissible at trial. This requirement relates back to the point in time when the party or attorney reasonably anticipated litigation about these matters. Text entry order. By Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 1/23/2024. (smb)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER: Each party and each attorney in this case shall take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that is relevant to any claim or defense in this case, whether or not the information is admissible at trial. This requirement relates back to the point in time when the party or attorney reasonably anticipated litigation about these matters. Text entry order. By Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 1/22/2024. (smb)
|
| **NEW CASE** Senior Judge James T Moody and Magistrate Judge John E Martin added. (kmt) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by B.L. Duke, Inc., Erik Ulrich. (Halm, Jonathan) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan E Halm on behalf of B.L. Duke, Inc., Erik Ulrich (Halm, Jonathan) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number AINNDC-5465762.) from Lake Superior Court, Cause No. 45D01-2307-CT-761, filed by B.L. Duke, Inc., Erik Ulrich. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet D, #5 Exhibit E)(Halm, Jonathan) |
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 Indiana 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.
