P.R.A. Company v. Arglass Yamamura SE, LLC
P.R.A. Company Doing business as Vantage Plastics |
Arglass Yamamura SE, LLC |
1:2024cv10204 |
January 26, 2024 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
Thomas L Ludington |
Patricia T Morris |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 14, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Fredric J. Bold, Jr on behalf of Arglass Yamamura SE, LLC. (Bold, Fredric) |
Filing 9 NOTICE OF IN PERSON HEARING on #6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. Motion Hearing set for 5/15/2024 at 4:00 PM before District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin) |
Filing 8 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Prerana R. Bacon appearing on behalf of P.R.A. Company (Bacon, Prerana) |
Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Apel on behalf of All Defendants. (Apel, Joshua) |
Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Apel, Joshua) |
Filing 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re #1 Complaint,,, by P.R.A. Company Acknowledgment of Service (Lawrence, David) |
Filing 4 EXHIBIT 1 re #1 Complaint,,, by P.R.A. Company (Lawrence, David) |
Filing 3 SUMMONS Issued for *Arglass Yamamura SE, LLC* (DJen) |
Filing 2 STATEMENT of DISCLOSURE of CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS and FINANCIAL INTEREST by P.R.A. Company, d/b/a Vantage Plastics (Lawrence, David) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by P.R.A. Company, d/b/a Vantage Plastics against Arglass Yamamura SE, LLC. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-9638081 - Fee: $ 405. County of 1st Plaintiff: Arenac - County Where Action Arose: Arenac - County of 1st Defendant: Out of State. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: #1 Index of Exhibits, #2 Exhibit 1 - Arglass Purchase Order, #3 Exhibit 2 - Tooling Approval Email, #4 Exhibit 3 - Vantage 12/10/20 Invoice VS0006278, #5 Exhibit 4 - Arglass Signed GTZ Bill of Lading, #6 Exhibit 5 - Tier Sheet Agreement, #7 Exhibit 6 - Vantage Invoice VS0007467, #8 Exhibit 7 - Vantage Invoice VS0009598, #9 Exhibit 8 - Vantage Invoices Against Tooling Purchase Order) (Lawrence, David) |
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at #http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (DJen) |
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 Michigan 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
Search for this case: P.R.A. Company v. Arglass Yamamura SE, LLC | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: P.R.A. Company Doing business as Vantage Plastics | |
Represented By: | David A. Lawrence |
Represented By: | Prerana R. Bacon |
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: Arglass Yamamura SE, LLC | |
Represented By: | Fredric J. Bold, Jr. |
Represented By: | Joshua Apel |
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.