Ellis et al v. Evonik Corporation et al
| Loritta Lumar, Joyce Johnson, Joan LeBeouf, Aleshia Sylvain, Lamar Ellis, Ramona Simoneaux, Geneiva Jones, Rosylyn Joseph, Margie Moore, Leroy Fortado, Sr., Kathrine Foster, Ervin Jack, Jr., August Tassin, Jr. and Ginger Villa |
| Randy Cashio, Evonik Materials Corporation, tomah reserve, Inc., Versum Materials Performance Manufacturing, Inc., Air Products Performance Manufacturing, Inc., James Carter, Evonik Corporation, Artis Williams, Kerry Harrison and Shell Oil Company |
| 2:2021cv01089 |
| June 4, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Dana Douglas |
| Sarah S Vance |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 27
ORDER denying #26 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Memorandum in Opposition. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 7/29/2021. (mm)
|
|
Filing 26
EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand by Evonik Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Proposed Pleading)(Vandenweghe, Roland)
|
|
Filing 25
REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support of re #19 MOTION to Remand filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-B, #2 Exhibit C-E)(pp)
|
|
Filing 24
ORDER GRANTING #23 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Remand is hereby filed in the record. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 7/28/2021. (pp)
|
|
Filing 23
EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remand by Lamar Ellis, Leroy Fortado, Sr, Kathrine Foster, Ervin Jack, Jr, Joyce Johnson, Geneiva Jones, Rosylyn Joseph, Joan LeBeouf, Loritta Lumar, Margie Moore, Ramona Simoneaux, Aleshia Sylvain, August Tassin, Jr, Ginger Villa. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Pleading, #2 Exhibit A-B, #3 Exhibit C-E, #4 Proposed Order)(Thornton, Jennifer) Modified text/event on 7/28/2021 (bw).
|
|
Filing 22
RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Artis Williams re #19 MOTION to Remand and Joinder in Evonik and Shell Oppositions. (Harris, Thorne)
|
|
Filing 21
RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Shell Oil Company re #19 MOTION to Remand . (Best, Mark)
|
|
Filing 20
RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Evonik Corporation re #19 MOTION to Remand . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A (Sumerlin Declaration), #2 Exhibit B (Williams Declaration), #3 Exhibit C (Harrison Declaration), #4 Exhibit D (Cashio Declaration))(Vandenweghe, Roland)
|
|
Filing 19
MOTION to Remand by Lamar Ellis, Leroy Fortado, Sr, Kathrine Foster, Ervin Jack, Jr, Joyce Johnson, Geneiva Jones, Rosylyn Joseph, Joan LeBeouf, Loritta Lumar, Margie Moore, Ramona Simoneaux, Aleshia Sylvain, August Tassin, Jr, Ginger Villa. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/28/2021. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Notice of Submission).(Thornton, Jennifer)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the #16 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer is GRANTED and that all defendants named in the above captioned litigation are granted twenty-one (21) days after the Court has decided Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion to remand to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/29/2021. (cwa)
|
|
Filing 17
Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re #16 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings re #1 Notice of Removal. **Filing attorney did not enter additional filer(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk added filer(s).** (mm)
|
|
Filing 16
EXPARTE/CONSENT JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings re #1 Notice of Removal by Lamar Ellis, Leroy Fortado, Sr, Kathrine Foster, Ervin Jack, Jr, Joyce Johnson, Geneiva Jones, Rosylyn Joseph, Joan LeBeouf, Loritta Lumar, Margie Moore, Ramona Simoneaux, Aleshia Sylvain, August Tassin, Jr, Ginger Villa, Shell Oil Company, Artis Williams, Randy Cashio, Evonik Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Barousse, William) Modified filers on 6/29/2021 (mm).
|
|
Filing 15
Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re #13 Notice of Compliance. **Filing attorney should have linked filing to Document 1. Clerk properly linked document.** (mm)
|
|
Filing 14
Statement of Corporate Disclosure by Evonik Corporation identifying Corporate Parent Evonik Operations GmbH, Corporate Parent Evonik Industries AG, Corporate Parent RAG-Stiftung, Corporate Parent Evonik International Holding B.V. for Evonik Corporation (Vandenweghe, Roland)
|
|
Filing 13
Notice of Compliance with Clerk's Directive Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) by Evonik Corporation re #1 Notice of Removal. (Vandenweghe, Roland) Modified linkage on 6/22/2021 (mm).
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer as to Artis Williams, answer due 7/2/2021. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/11/2021. (cwa)
|
|
Filing 10
Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re #9 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer #1 Notice of Removal. **Filing attorney should have linked filing to Document 1. Clerk properly linked document.** (mm)
|
|
Filing 9
EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer #1 Notice of Removal by Artis Williams. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Harris, Thorne) Modified text/added linkage on 6/10/2021 (mm).
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #5 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Notice of Removal as to Shell Oil Company; answer due 6/30/2021. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/8/2021. (mm)
|
|
Filing 7
Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re #6 Statement of Corporate Disclosure. **Filing attorney did not enter Royal Dutch Shell PLC as a corporate parent(s) at the prompt 'Search for a corporate parent or other affiliate'. Clerk took corrective action.** (mm)
|
|
Filing 6
Statement of Corporate Disclosure identifying Corporate Parent Royal Dutch Shell PLC for Shell Oil Company by Shell Oil Company (Best, Mark) Modified text/added corporate parent on 6/7/2021 (mm).
|
|
Filing 5
EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Notice of Removal by Shell Oil Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Best, Mark)
|
|
Filing 4
Directive of the Clerk regarding compliance 28:1447(b) re #1 Notice of Removal filed by Evonik Corporation. (lt)
|
|
Filing 3
Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re #1 Notice of Removal. **Clerk requested corrected copy of the Notice of Removal. Filing Attorney subsequently provided corrected copy and Clerk has attached it to the filing. No further action is required.** (mm)
|
|
Filing 2
Initial Case Assignment to Judge Sarah S. Vance and Magistrate Judge Dana Douglas. (go)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 40th Judicial District Court, St. John the Baptist Parish, case number C-76717 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ALAEDC-8888792) filed by Evonik Corporation. (Attachments: #1 State Court Pleadings Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B (Shell's Notice of Consent), #3 Exhibit C (Artis Williams's Notice of Consent), #4 Exhibit D (Randy Cashio's Notice of Consent), #5 Exhibit E (Kerry Harrison's Notice of Consent), #6 Exhibit F (State Coiurt Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal), #7 Civil Cover Sheet)Attorney Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr added to party Evonik Corporation(pty:dft).(Vandenweghe, Roland) (Main Document 1 replaced on 6/7/2021) (mm). (Attachment 1 replaced on 6/7/2021) (lt). Modified text on 6/7/2021 (lt). Modified text on 6/8/2021 (lt).
|
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 Louisiana 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.
