Neogen Corporation v. Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC
| Neogen Corporation |
| Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC |
| 1:2018cv00789 |
| July 17, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Michigan |
| Southern Division (1) Office |
| Ingham |
| Ellen S Carmody |
| Janet T Neff |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 12, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER scheduling a pre-motion conference regarding document number #9 : pre-motion conference is set for 10/10/2018 at 01:30 PM at 401 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Judge Janet T. Neff; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
|
| Filing 12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST for pre-motion conference by defendant Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC #9 and Certificate of Service ; filed by Neogen Corporation filed by Neogen Corporation (Attachments: #1 Index Exhibit List, #2 Exhibit A-Mutual Confidentiality & Non-Disclosure Agreement, #3 Exhibit B-First Amendment to Confidentiality & Non-Disclosure Agreement) (Huget, J.) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER granting #10 motion for extension of time; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION for extension of time to File a Responsive Pleading by defendant Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC; (Levasseur, Dennis) |
| Filing 9 REQUEST for pre-motion conference by defendant Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC (Levasseur, Dennis) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting STIPULATION #7 ; Defendant shall have until 9/21/2018 to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
|
| Filing 7 PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER Regarding time to responsd to complaint by plaintiff Neogen Corporation (Huget, J.) Modified text on 7/26/2018 (mg). |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS returned executed; Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC served on 7/20/2018, answer due 8/10/2018 (Huget, J.) |
| (NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Shirin Savliwala Goyal on behalf of plaintiff Neogen Corporation (Goyal, Shirin) |
| (NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Michael Joseph Serra on behalf of defendant Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC (Serra, Michael) |
| (NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Dennis J. Levasseur on behalf of defendant Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC (Levasseur, Dennis) |
| (NON-DOCUMENT) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Adam Michael Wenner on behalf of plaintiff Neogen Corporation (Wenner, Adam) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to defendant Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC (mg) |
| Filing 4 PROPOSED SUMMONS to be issued re #1 (Huget, J.) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE that this case has been assigned Janet T. Neff (mg) |
| SUMMONS NOT ISSUED as to defendant Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC (none provided) (mg) |
| Filing 2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Neogen Corporation (Huget, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Innovative Reproduction Technology, LLC filed by Neogen Corporation (Attachments: #1 Index, #2 Exhibit A. Exclusive Supply Agreement, #3 Exhibit B. March 31, 2017 Supply Agreement Termination Letter, #4 Exhibit C. February 28, 2018 Letter from IRT re Catheter Production Issues, #5 Exhibit D. May 21, 2018 Payment Demand Letter to IRT, #6 Civil Cover Sheet) (Huget, J.) |
| FILING FEE PAID re #1 by plaintiff Neogen Corporation in the amount of $400, receipt number 0646-4184194 (Huget, J.) |
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 Western 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.
