Independence Project, Inc. et al v. LCRF, LLC
| The Independence Project, Inc. and John Meggs |
| LCRF, LLC |
| 4:2018cv01934 |
| November 15, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Charles A Shaw |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
Docket Text ORDER re: Doc. #9 , Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to #1 Plaintiff's Complaint, filed by Defendant LCRF, LLC.; ORDERED GRANTED. Defendant shall file its responsive pleading by February 8, 2019. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on January 10, 2019. (LL)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Complaint, by Defendant LCRF, LLC. (Matthews, R.) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER - This matter is before the Court on review of the file. The parties are advised that one of the undersigned's part-time law clerks is the spouse of an equity partner at Lewis Rice LLC, which represents defendant in this case. The law clerk's spouse has not entered an appearance in this case and the undersigned will recuse from the case if he does so. The Court will isolate the affected law clerk from the case so she will have no contact with it, and will assign it to a conflict-free law clerk. The Court believes this action resolves any potential conflict that could arise in this matter. If, after consideration, a party believes disqualification of the undersigned is required, any motion for recusal based on the disclosed matter shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. SO ORDERED Response to Court due by 12/27/2018.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 12/13/2018. (MRC)
|
|
Filing 7
Docket Text ORDER re: Doc. #6 , Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response, filed by Defendant LCRF, LLC; ORDERED GRANTED. Defendant shall file its response to the Complaint by January 10, 2019. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on November 30, 2018. (SMH)
|
| Filing 6 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Defendant LCRF, LLC. (Matthews, R.) |
| Filing 5 ENTRY of Appearance by R. Taylor Matthews, III for Defendant LCRF, LLC. (Matthews, R.) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by The Independence Project, Inc., John Meggs. LCRF, LLC served on 11/20/2018, answer due 12/11/2018. (Shadinger, Jon) |
| Case Opening Notification: 1 Summons(es) issued. The summons was emailed to Jon G. Shadinger Jr.. All non-governmental organizational parties (corporations, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships) must file Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate # (moed-0001.pdf). Judge Assigned: Honorable Charles A. Shaw. (MFG) |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Plaintiff The Independence Project, Inc.. Parent companies: None, Subsidiaries: None, Publicly held company: None,. (Shadinger, Jon) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiffs The Independence Project, Inc., John Meggs Process Server: Robert Pedroli (Shadinger, Jon) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against defendant LCRF, LLC with receipt number 0865-6877562, in the amount of $400 Non-Jury Demand,, filed by The Independence Project, Inc., John Meggs. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Original Filing Form)(Shadinger, Jon) |
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 Missouri 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
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.
