PENSCO Trust Company Custodian FBO Richard J. Fagan v. Constant S. Poholek, Jr., Esq.
Plaintiff: Mr constant s poholek and PENSCO Trust Company
Defendant: Constant S. Poholek, Jr.
Case Number: 1:2019cv12000
Filed: September 23, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Presiding Judge: Richard G Stearns
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1446
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 1, 2019 Filing 14 Summons Issued as to Constant S. Poholek, Jr. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service.note: Clerk Issued summons and handed over in person (Castilla, Francis)
October 30, 2019 Filing 13 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part #5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The existence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant normally depends on legally sufficient service of process. See Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). When a defendant seasonably challenges the adequacy of service, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that service was proper. See Rivera-Lopez v. Municipality of Dorado, 979 F.2d 885, 887 (1st Cir. 1992). Plaintiff did not serve defendant Constant Poholek, Jr. personally, but rather, Constable Paul Terrio served the Complaint on an Attorney Beland who works at the same address as Poholek. Poholek asserts that Beland "is not an agent for [Poholek] authorized to accept service of process on [his] behalf." Dkt. #6, Mem. at 4. Without more, plaintiff has failed to meet its burden. Accordingly, the court will STAY this case for thirty days -- until until November 30, 2019, to provide plaintiff with the opportunity to perfect service on Poholek. SO ORDERED. (Zierk, Marsha)
October 25, 2019 Filing 12 REPLY to Response to #5 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Constant S. Poholek, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 2(2))(Ezepek, Matthew)
October 22, 2019 Filing 11 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #10 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. The Reply must be filed no later than October 25, 2019, and be no more than eight pages in length. (Zierk, Marsha)
October 21, 2019 Filing 10 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Constant S. Poholek, Jr.(Ezepek, Matthew)
October 15, 2019 Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew A. Ezepek on behalf of Constant S. Poholek, Jr (Ezepek, Matthew)
October 14, 2019 Filing 8 First Opposition re #5 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by PENSCO Trust Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibits)(Fiegel, John)
October 1, 2019 Filing 7 EXHIBIT re #6 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Constant S. Poholek, Jr. (Poholek, Constant)
October 1, 2019 Filing 6 First MEMORANDUM in Support re #5 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Constant S. Poholek, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Declaration, #2 Exhibit Summons)(Poholek, Constant)
October 1, 2019 Filing 5 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Constant S. Poholek, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Compliance)(Poholek, Constant)
September 26, 2019 Filing 4 AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL, filed by Constant S. Poholek, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Supplement)(Poholek, Constant) Modified on 9/26/2019 to correct docket text (Pacho, Arnold).
September 24, 2019 Filing 3 Certified Copy of Notice of Removal Provided to Defense Counsel by mail (DeMaria, Timothy)
September 24, 2019 Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein. (Finn, Mary)
September 24, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL against Constant S. Poholek. Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101-7891041 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Constant S. Poholek. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Local Category Form) (Poholek, Constant)

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PENSCO Trust Company Custodian FBO Richard J. Fagan v. Constant S. Poholek, Jr., Esq.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mr constant s poholek
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: PENSCO Trust Company
Represented By: Blake J. Godbout
Represented By: John T. Fiegel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Constant S. Poholek, Jr.
Represented By: Constant S. Poholek
Represented By: Matthew A. Ezepek
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?