Eastfield Associates LLC v. Cinemark USA, Inc.
| Eastfield Associates LLC |
| Cinemark USA, Inc. |
| 3:2020cv30134 |
| August 20, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Katherine A Robertson |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded) against Cinemark USA, Inc., filed by Eastfield Associates LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit)(Poindexter, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 11 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Notification forms indicating whether or not a party has consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge have not been received in the Clerk's Office. The submission of the form is mandatory. Completed forms shall be filed on or before the close of business on October 27, 2020. Additional forms can be obtained on the Court's web page at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov. (Rivera, Melissa) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference ISSUED: A Scheduling Conference is set for 11/17/2020 at 3:30 PM in Remote Proceeding : Springfield before Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. Joint Statement due by 11/10/2020. See attached Notice for complete details. This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the session's courtroom deputy as soon as possible.Access to the hearing will be made available to the media and public. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: #www.public.mad.uscourts.gov/seating-signup.html. For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the Court's general orders and public notices available on #www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact media@mad.uscourts.gov.(Rivera, Melissa) |
| Filing 9 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Cinemark USA, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Cinemark Holdings, Inc. for Cinemark USA, Inc... (Rosenberg, Aaron) |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, with Jury Demand by Cinemark USA, Inc..(Rosenberg, Aaron) |
| Filing 7 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting the Defendant's Assented to #6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint, Cinemark USA, Inc. answer due 9/28/2020. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 6 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 9/28/20 to File Answer re #1 Complaint, by Cinemark USA, Inc..(Rosenberg, Aaron) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Paul St. Martin on behalf of Eastfield Associates LLC (St. Martin, Christopher) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed Cinemark USA, Inc. served on 8/24/2020, answer due 9/14/2020. (Poindexter, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Cinemark USA, Inc.. 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. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Cinemark USA, Inc. Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101-8382682 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Eastfield Associates, LLC.(Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Category Sheet, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C, #6 Exhibit D, #7 Exhibit E, #8 Exhibit F, #9 Exhibit G, #10 Exhibit H)(Poindexter, Jeffrey) |
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
| Search for this case: Eastfield Associates LLC v. Cinemark USA, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Cinemark USA, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Aaron D. Rosenberg |
| 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: Eastfield Associates LLC | |
| Represented By: | Jeffrey E. Poindexter |
| Represented By: | Christopher Paul St. Martin |
| 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.
