Rice v. Interfood, Inc. et al
Larry Rice |
Interfood, Inc. and Tepco, B.V. |
4:2019cv03162 |
November 27, 2019 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
Henry Edward Autrey |
Noelle C Collins |
Contract: Other |
28:1332 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 29, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 30 REPLY to Response to Motion re #25 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 filed by Defendants Interfood, Inc., Tepco, B.V.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 29 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #25 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) |
Filing 28 RESPONSE in Opposition re #25 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) |
Filing 27 REPLY (entitled reply to defendants' Doc #22 ) to re #14 MOTION to Clarify MOTION to Remand Case to State Court, #15 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Circuit Court of Franklin County, MO filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) |
Filing 26 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re #25 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 filed by Defendant Interfood, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Shareholders Agreement, #2 Exhibit 2 - Defendants Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, and Defendants' Second Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Petition, #3 Exhibit 3 - Judgment Enforcing Settlement Agreement, #4 Exhibit 4 - Settlement Agreement and Release Executed by Larry Rice, #5 Exhibit 5 - Affidavit of Loss and Indemnity Agreement, #6 Exhibit 6 - Stock Certificate)(Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 25 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by Defendant Interfood, Inc.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 24 REPLY (entitled reply to defendants' Doc #21 & 23) to Response to Motion re #14 MOTION to correct the record, change judge, remand case to state court, re #15 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Circuit Court of Franklin County, MO and re #11 Motion to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (MCB) |
Filing 23 REPLY to Response to Motion re #11 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Insufficient Service of Process and, in the Alternative, for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Tepco, B.V.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 22 REPLY to Response to Motion re #9 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Interfood, Inc.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 21 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #14 MOTION to Clarify MOTION to Remand Case to State Court, #15 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Circuit Court of Franklin County, MO filed by Defendants Interfood, Inc., Tepco, B.V.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 20 SUPPLEMENTAL (exhibits) re #19 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (MCB) |
Filing 19 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of Opposition re #11 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Insufficient Service of Process and, in the Alternative, for Failure to State a Claim filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) |
Filing 18 RESPONSE in Opposition re #11 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Insufficient Service of Process and, in the Alternative, for Failure to State a Claim filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) |
Filing 17 RESPONSE in Opposition re #9 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) |
Filing 16 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re #15 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Circuit Court of Franklin County, MO filed by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) |
Filing 15 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Circuit Court of Franklin County, MO by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (AAS) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/17/2019: #1 Attachment, #2 attachment, #3 attachment) (AAS). |
Filing 14 MOTION to correct the record, change judge, Remand Case to State Court, and include plaintiff in electronic filing and notification by Plaintiff Larry Rice. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(KXS) |
![]() |
Filing 13 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendants Interfood, Inc., Tepco, B.V. Sent To: State Court - Executed (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 12 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re #11 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Insufficient Service of Process and, in the Alternative, for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Tepco, B.V.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Franciscus van Stipdonk, #2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Alexis Monzon)(Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 11 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Insufficient Service of Process and, in the Alternative, for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant Tepco, B.V.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 10 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re #9 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Interfood, Inc.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 9 MOTION to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant Interfood, Inc.. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 8 REASSIGNMENT ORDER (GJL).. The above-styled and numbered case was opened on November 27, 2019. A review of the case reflects that the Original Filing Form filed by counsel for plaintiff states: This Same Cause, Or A Substantially Equivalent Complaint, Was Previously Filed In This Court As Case Number 4:13-cv-01171-HEA and Assigned To The Honorable Henry E. Autrey. Due to clerical error, this case was randomly assigned to the Honorable Noelle C. Collins, United States Magistrate Judge and must be reassigned. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-styled cause is reassigned to the Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge. Dated this 2nd Day of December 2019(MFG) |
Filing 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (CSAW) |
Case Opening Notification: All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. Judge Assigned: Honorable Noelle C. Collins. (MFG) |
Filing 6 Petition (Removal/Transfer) Received From: State Court of Franklin County, filed by Larry Rice. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(MFG) |
Filing 5 ENTRY of Appearance by Jonathan Ryan Shulan for Defendants Interfood, Inc., Tepco, B.V.. (Shulan, Jonathan) |
Filing 4 DISCLOSURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant Tepco, B.V.. Parent companies: None, Subsidiaries: None, Publicly held company: None,. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 3 DISCLOSURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant Interfood, Inc.. Parent companies: Tepco, B.V., Subsidiaries: None, Publicly held company: None,. (Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 2 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendants Interfood, Inc., Tepco, B.V. Sent To: Plaintiff (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Notice of Removal)(Schultz, Jeffrey) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Franklin County, case number 19AB-CC00219, with receipt number AMOEDC-7609872, in the amount of $400 Jury Demand,, filed by Tepco, B.V., Interfood, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - State Court Complaint, #2 Exhibit 2 - State Court Pleadings, #3 Exhibit 3 - State Court Docket, #4 Affidavit Affidavit of Alexis Monzon, #5 Affidavit Affidavit of Franciscus van Stipdonk, #6 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Original Filing Form Original Filing Form)(Schultz, Jeffrey) |
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.