Marco Specialty Steel, Inc v. Western Surety Co.
| The United States of America, For the Use of Marco Specialty Steel, Inc. and Marco Specialty Steel, Inc |
| Western Surety Co. and Western Surety Company |
| 2:2022cv01465 |
| May 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Barry W Ashe |
| Donna Phillips Currault |
| Miller Act |
| 40 U.S.C. ยง 3131 Miller Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint, as to Western Surety Company answer due 8/3/2022. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 07/13/2022. (am)
|
| Filing 9 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint, by Western Surety Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Dawson, Tanya) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint, as to Western Surety Company answer due 7/13/2022. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 06/22/2022. (am)
|
| Filing 7 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re #6 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint. **Please, disregard the previously issued deficiency. The document is not deemed deficient. **1. Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Exparte/Consent Motions are not set for submission. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte' and removed submission date. **2. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the District Judge. Clerk took corrective action. **3. **Document lists counsel Bradford T. Laney, for a party in this action who has not been admitted to practice in this court. Any party not appearing in proper person must be represented by a member of the bar of this court (L.R. 83.2.4). Please see Local Rule 83.2.2 for this courts Procedures for Admission and Local Rule 83.2.5 for Visiting Attorneys to appear and participate Pro Hac Vice. Any future filings which list attorneys not admitted pursuant to LR 83.2.2 or 83.2.5 will not be accepted and will be deemed deficient.** (am) |
| Filing 6 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint, by Western Surety Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Notice of Submission)Attorney Tanya Dugas Dawson added to party Western Surety Company(pty:dft).(Dawson, Tanya) Modified text/removed referral/removed submission on 6/22/2022 (am). |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Western Surety Company served on 5/31/2022, answer due 6/21/2022. (Kadden, Benjamin) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Western Surety Co. (ko) |
| Filing 3 Request of Summons Issued as to Western Surety Co. filed by Marco Specialty Steel, Inc. re #1 Complaint. (Kadden, Benjamin) Modified on 5/27/2022 (ko). |
| Filing 2 Initial Case Assignment to Judge Barry W Ashe and Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault. (go) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against Western Surety Co. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ALAEDC-9371235) filed by Marco Specialty Steel, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Payment Bond, #2 Exhibit Ex. 2 - Purchase Order, #3 Exhibit Ex. 3 - January 19, 2022 Demand Letter, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)Attorney Benjamin Warren Kadden added to party Marco Specialty Steel, Inc.(pty:pla).(Kadden, Benjamin) Modified on 5/27/2022 (ko). |
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.
