Packard v. Dunphy et al
| David A. Packard |
| Hon. Sean M. Dunphy, Hon. John D. Casey, Pamela A Casey O'Brien, Will Fuller and Mark Pearson |
| 1:2021cv11427 |
| August 31, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Leo T Sorokin |
| Constitutional - State Statute |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1343 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 27 MEMORANDUM in Support re #26 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Mark Pearson. (Maselek, Robert) |
| Filing 26 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Mark Pearson.(Maselek, Robert) |
| Filing 25 MEMORANDUM in Support re #24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Will Fuller. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Magratten, Brooks) (Attachment 2 replaced on 10/22/2021) (Dore, Samantha). Modified on 10/22/2021 Exhibit B replaced with redacted version provided by counsel. (Dore, Samantha). |
| Filing 24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Will Fuller.(Magratten, Brooks) |
| Filing 23 Certificate of Service by David A. Packard. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 22 District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re #21 REPLY to Response to 5 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to October 22, 2021 to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Mark Pearson. To the extent the plaintiff requested, in his opposition to defendant Equitable's motion to extend, entry of default judgment as to Equitable, Doc. No. 15 at 3-4, that request is DENIED. To the extent Equitable requested, in its reply to the plaintiff's opposition, that the Court award it fees for its submissions related to its extension request, Doc. No. 21 at 2, that request is also DENIED. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 21 REPLY to Response to #5 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to October 22, 2021 to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Mark Pearson. (Maselek, Robert) |
| Filing 20 District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re #19 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Will Fuller. ALLOWED. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 19 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Will Fuller.(Magratten, Brooks) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Appearance by Brooks R. Magratten on behalf of Will Fuller (Magratten, Brooks) |
| Filing 17 Opposition re #13 MOTION for Extension of Time to 11/23/21 to File Response filed by David A. Packard. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 16 District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: New Civil Cases Procedural ORDER entered. (Simeone, Maria) |
| Filing 15 Opposition re #5 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to October 22, 2021 to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Mark Pearson filed by David A. Packard. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2) (Dore, Samantha) Modified on 9/28/2021 (Dore, Samantha). Date filed was changed. |
| Filing 14 District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re #13 MOTION for Extension of Time to 11/23/21 to File Response by John D. Casey, Pamela A Casey O'Brien, Sean M. Dunphy. ALLOWED. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Extension of Time to 11/23/21 to File Response by John D. Casey, Pamela A Casey O'Brien, Sean M. Dunphy.(Duron, Angelica) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Angelica L. Duron on behalf of John D. Casey, Pamela A Casey O'Brien, Sean M. Dunphy (Duron, Angelica) |
| Filing 11 District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered: re #5 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to October 22, 2021 to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Mark Pearson. ALLOWED. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Mark Pearson served on 9/3/2021, answer due 9/24/2021. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Will Fuller served on 9/3/2021, answer due 9/24/2021. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Pamela A Casey O'Brien served on 9/3/2021, answer due 9/24/2021. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to John D. Casey served on 9/3/2021, answer due 9/24/2021. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Sean M. Dunphy served on 9/3/2021, answer due 9/24/2021. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 5 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Time to October 22, 2021 to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by Mark Pearson.(Maselek, Robert) |
| Filing 4 Filing fee/payment: $ 402, receipt number 1BST086252 for #1 Complaint (Castilla, Francis) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to John D. Casey, Pamela A Casey O'Brien, Sean M. Dunphy, Will Fuller, Mark Pearson. 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. (Dore, Samantha) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Mark Pearson, Pamela A Casey O'Brien, John D. Casey, Sean M. Dunphy, Will Fuller, filed by David A Packard. (Attachments: #1 Category Form, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit) (Dore, Samantha) |
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 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.
