Sharma v. Crosscode, Inc.
Plaintiff: Anshu Sharma
Defendant: Crosscode, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2020cv01042
Filed: April 29, 2020
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Presiding Judge: David S Doty
Referring Judge: Becky R Thorson
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instrument
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 7, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 7, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 8 (Text-Only) ORDER/NOTICE TO ATTORNEY. Due to the bankruptcy stay, there is good cause to delay scheduling a pretrial conference at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 5/7/2020.(MSK)
May 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting #5 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney David M Friedman for Crosscode, Inc. Approved by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 5/6/2020. (NAH)
May 5, 2020 Filing 6 NOTICE OF FILING BANKRUPTCY by Crosscode, Inc. and Stay of Proceedings (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A - voluntary petition)(Pack, Thomas)
May 5, 2020 Filing 5 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney David M. Friedman. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC-7699460 filed by Crosscode, Inc.. (Pack, Thomas)
April 30, 2020 Filing 4 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Notice re: Non-Admitted AttorneyWe have received documents listing David M. Friedman, Micah Nash, Michelle L. Covington as counsel of record. If he or she wishes to be listed as an attorney of record in this case, he or she must be admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in accordance with #Local Rule 83.5 (a), (b) and (c) or temporarily admitted pro hac vice in accordance with #Local Rule 83.5 (d) or (e).For more admissions information and forms, please see the Attorney Forms Section of the courts website at #href=http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/FORMS/court_forms.shtml#attorneyforms#. (KDS)
April 30, 2020 Filing 3 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge David S. Doty per 3rd/4th Civil Master list, referred to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. Please use case number 20-cv-1042 DSD/BRT. (KDS)
April 29, 2020 Filing 2 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation or wholly-owned subsidiary to report for Defendant Crosscode, Inc.. (Pack, Thomas)
April 29, 2020 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Hennepin County, case number 27-cv-20-6044 (filing fee $ 400, receipt number AMNDC-7684326) filed by Crosscode, Inc.. No summons requested. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 1 - Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit(s) 2 - State Court docket, #3 Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal, #4 Civil Cover Sheet) (Pack, Thomas)

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sharma v. Crosscode, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Anshu Sharma
Represented By: Bradley A Kletscher
Represented By: Tyler William Eubank
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: Crosscode, Inc.
Represented By: Thomas R. Pack
Represented By: David M Friedman
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.


Why Is My Information Online?