Marwil et al v. Homes #39
| Judith Marwil and David Marwil |
| Clayton Homes #39 |
| 5:2020cv00439 |
| October 23, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Gregory F VanTatenhove |
| Personal Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| ***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove for review: re #4 CONSENT MOTION to Stay by Clayton Homes #39 for 90 days (JJ) |
| Filing 4 CONSENT MOTION to Stay by Clayton Homes #39 for 90 days (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Deener, Elizabeth) |
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove for review: #1 Notice of Removal. (MDC) |
| Filing 2 FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Clayton Homes #39 identifying Corporate Parent CMH Capital, Inc., Other Affiliate Berkshire Hathaway Inc. whose trading symbol is BRK-A; BRK-B for Clayton Homes #39. (MDC) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT, case number 20-CI-128. ( Filing fee $400; receipt number 0643-4808852), filed by Clayton Homes #39. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - State Court Record, #2 Exhibit B - Demand Letter, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(MDC) |
| Conflict Check run. (MDC) |
| ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Clayton Homes #39. *FILED IN STATE COURT RECORD. SEE #1 . (MDC) |
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
