RedKo Innovations, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.
Plaintiff: RedKo Innovations, Inc.
Defendant: Walmart, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2024cv02452
Filed: June 24, 2024
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Presiding Judge: Douglas L Micko
Referring Judge: Patrick J Schiltz
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 20, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 20, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 21 (Text-Only) ORDER granting #10 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Brittany Boswell for Walmart, Inc. Approved by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 8/20/2024. (jam)
August 16, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 20 (Text-Only) ORDER/NOTICE TO ATTORNEY. Due to the pending Motion to Dismiss #11 , the Court finds there is good cause to delay the entry of a pretrial scheduling order. The Court will schedule a pretrial conference, if needed, promptly after a decision is issued on the pending motion. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 8/16/2024. (jme)
August 16, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER granting #17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 8/16/2024. (CLG)
August 15, 2024 Filing 18 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #17 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #16 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by RedKo Innovations, Inc..(Collyard, Michael)
August 15, 2024 Filing 17 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #16 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by RedKo Innovations, Inc.. (Collyard, Michael)
August 15, 2024 Filing 16 MEMORANDUM in Support re #11 MOTION to Dismiss/General Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Walmart, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Laud, Sanjiv)
August 15, 2024 Filing 15 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #11 MOTION to Dismiss/General Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Walmart, Inc..(Laud, Sanjiv)
August 15, 2024 Filing 14 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re #11 Motion to Dismiss/General filed by Walmart, Inc..(Laud, Sanjiv)
August 15, 2024 Filing 13 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-WILL REFILE. MEMORANDUM in Support re #11 MOTION to Dismiss/General Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Walmart, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Laud, Sanjiv) Modified text on 8/15/2024 (MKB).
August 15, 2024 Filing 12 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION #11 MOTION to Dismiss/General Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) : Motion Hearing set for 11/13/2024 at 08:30 AM in Judge's Chambers 15 (MPLS) before Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz. (Laud, Sanjiv)
August 15, 2024 Filing 11 MOTION to Dismiss/General Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Walmart, Inc.. (Laud, Sanjiv)
August 15, 2024 Filing 10 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Brittany A. Boswell. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number AMNDC-11266570 filed by Walmart, Inc.. (Laud, Sanjiv)
July 30, 2024 Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by J Thomas Vitt on behalf of Walmart, Inc.. (Vitt, J)
July 30, 2024 Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Sanjiv P. Laud on behalf of Walmart, Inc.. (Laud, Sanjiv)
July 11, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 7 (Text-Only) ORDER. Based on the parties' Joint Motion #5 , and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall have until and including August 15, 2024, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 7/11/2024. (jme)
July 10, 2024 Filing 6 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Joint Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer Complaint #5 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. (Collyard, Michael)
July 10, 2024 Filing 5 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by RedKo Innovations, Inc.. (Collyard, Michael)
June 25, 2024 Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by RedKo Innovations, Inc.. Walmart, Inc. served on 6/25/2024, answer due 7/16/2024. (Collyard, Michael)
June 24, 2024 Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Walmart, Inc. (MKB)
June 24, 2024 Filing 2 (Text-Only) CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz per Civil (3rd, 4th - Master) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko. Please use case number 24-cv-2452 (PJS/DLM).Notice: All Nongovernmental Corporate Parties must file a #Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. (MKB)
June 24, 2024 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Walmart, Inc. (filing fee $ 405, receipt number AMNDC-11148846) filed by RedKo Innovations, Inc.. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Collyard, Michael)

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: RedKo Innovations, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Walmart, Inc.
Represented By: Sanjiv P. Laud
Represented By: J Thomas Vitt
Represented By: Brittany Boswell
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: RedKo Innovations, Inc.
Represented By: Michael A Collyard
Represented By: Peter Ihrig
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?