Eusner v. Sullivan et al
| Paul Eusner |
| William Ellis Sullivan and Erin M. Sullivan |
| 5:2021cv00074 |
| March 19, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Gregory F VanTatenhove |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1442 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 9, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
REPLY to Response to #4 Motion to Change Venue filed by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan. (Getty, Richard) Modified Text/Add link on 4/30/2021 (MDC).
|
|
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION TO Richard A. Getty re #9 REPLY: Error: a link was created to the Response instead of the Motion; Entry by attorney; Clerk modified the entry to create a link to the Motion, thereby placing the reply on the Judges motion report. In the future, create a link to the subject motion. The appropriate event is Reply to Response to Motion. No further action required by counsel. cc: COR (MDC)
|
|
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove for review: re #4 MOTION to Change Venue by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan (MDC)
|
|
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove for review: #7 Answer to Amended Complaint (MDC)
|
|
Filing 8
RESPONSE in Opposition re #4 MOTION to Change Venue by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan filed by Paul Eusner. (Attachments: #1 May 15, 2020 Listing Agreement, #2 August 6, 2020 Offer to Purchase, #3 February 5, 2021 Deed, #4 March 31, 2021 Order denying, #5 Georgia Eusner Grigor Affidavit, #6 Larry Anderson Affidavit, #7 Proposed Order)(Redford, Carroll)
|
|
Filing 7
ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan.(Getty, Richard)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER: 1) Dfts accepted service of process through their counsel and were thereby properly served on 03/19/2021; and 2) Dfts SHALL FILE their answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint NLT 04/20/2021. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 04/05/2021. (MDC) cc: COR
|
|
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove for review: #5 Proposed Agreed Order by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan (MDC)
|
|
Filing 5
Proposed Agreed Order by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan. (Getty, Richard) Modified Filers on 4/5/2021 (MDC).
|
|
Filing 4
MOTION to Change Venue by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Memorandum in Support, #3 Exhibit A Affidavit of Ellis Sullivan, #4 Exhibit B Affidavit of Erin Sullivan, #5 Exhibit C Redacted Stalking Order documents, #6 Exhibit D Termination Letter, #7 Exhibit E Affidavit of Paul Eusner, #8 Exhibit F Proposed Lease)(Getty, Richard)
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Paul Eusner. (Forester, William)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Fayette County Circuit Court, case number 21-CI-542. ( Filing fee $402; receipt number 0643-4925185), filed by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Fayette Circuit Court Record, #2 Exhibit B - Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal in Fayette Circuit Court, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(MDC)
|
|
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan, filed by Paul Eusner. *FILED IN STATE COURT RECORD. SEE #1 . (MDC)
|
|
Conflict Check run. (MDC)
|
|
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Venue by Erin M. Sullivan, William Ellis Sullivan. *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.
