Sculles v. Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC
| Lori Sculles |
| Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC |
| 5:2023cv11508 |
| June 26, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Curtis Ivy |
| Judith E Levy |
| Contract: Recovery/Enforcement |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
STIPULATED ORDER Extending Time for Defendant to Answer #7 Amended Complaint; Responsive Pleading due by 9/21/2023, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
|
| Filing 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Lori Sculles against Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Contract Emails, #2 Exhibit B - Partnership Email, #3 Exhibit C - Offer Letter, #4 Exhibit D - 3.27.23 Email) (Urtz, Kevin) |
|
Filing 6
Order Vacating #4 Order to Show Cause (Plaintiff Must file her Amended Complaint by August 18, 2023) - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (LBar)
|
| Filing 5 RESPONSE to #4 Order to Show Cause by Lori Sculles. (Urtz, Kevin) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why the Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Show Cause Response due by 8/8/2023. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (HRya)
|
| Filing 3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC waiver sent on 6/26/2023, answer due 8/25/2023. (Urtz, Kevin) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Issued for *Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC* (DAll) |
| REQUEST for SUMMONS for Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC. (Urtz, Kevin) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Lori Sculles against Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC with Jury Demand. No summons requested. Receipt No: AMIEDC-9396501 - Fee: $ 402. County of 1st Plaintiff: Monroe - County Where Action Arose: Monroe - County of 1st Defendant: Out of State. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Contract Emails, #2 Exhibit B - Partnership Email, #3 Exhibit C - Offer Letter, #4 Exhibit D - 3.27.23 Email) (Urtz, Kevin) |
| 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 (DPer) |
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: Sculles v. Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Lori Sculles | |
| Represented By: | Kevin C. Urtz |
| 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: Pride Delivery and Installation, LLC | |
| 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.
