Steinbrook v. Spee-Dee Delivery Service, Inc. et al
| Derek Steinbrook |
| Spee-Dee Courier, Inc., Spee Dee Delivery Service, Inc., Nathan K. Roesch and Spee-Dee Delivery Service, Inc |
| 4:2022cv00995 |
| September 22, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Audrey G Fleissig |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Plaintiff's ANSWER to Complaint Spee Dee's Affirmative Defenses by Derek Steinbrook.(Rakers, Kara) |
| Filing 13 Plaintiff's ANSWER to Complaint Affirmative Defenses by Derek Steinbrook.(Rakers, Kara) |
Filing 12
RULE 16 ORDER This case is assigned to Track: 2: STANDARD Joint Scheduling Plan due by 12/1/2022. Rule 16 Conference set for 12/8/2022 02:00 PM in Zoom Video Conference before District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig.. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/27/22. (KJS)
|
| Filing 11 DISCLOSURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant Spee-Dee Delivery Service, Inc. No corporate parents or affiliates identified. (Zeidler, Edward) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend by interlineation is GRANTED. ECF No. #9 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the parties' agreement that the proper Defendant in this case is not Defendant Spee-Dee Courier, Inc. f/k/a Spee Dee Delivery Service, Inc., but Spee-Dee Delivery Service, Inc., the Clerk of Court shall substitute Spee-Dee Delivery Service, Inc. as the Defendant. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 9/30/2022. (JMP)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Amend/Correct #7 Petition (Removal/Transfer) by Plaintiff Derek Steinbrook. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Rakers, Kara) |
| Filing 8 ENTRY of Appearance by Kara L. Rakers for Plaintiff Derek Steinbrook. (Rakers, Kara) |
| Filing 7 Petition (Removal/Transfer) Received From: St. Louis City Circuit Court, filed by Derek Steinbrook.(JBH) |
| Filing 6 ENTRY of Appearance by John P. Rahoy for Defendants Nathan Roesch, Spee-Dee Courier, Inc. f/k/a Spee Dee Delivery Service, Inc.. (Rahoy, John) |
| Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint by Spee-Dee Courier, Inc. f/k/a Spee Dee Delivery Service, Inc..(Zeidler, Edward) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint by Nathan Roesch.(Zeidler, Edward) |
| Filing 3 ENTRY of Appearance by Edward W. Zeidler, II for Defendants Nathan Roesch, Spee-Dee Courier, Inc. f/k/a Spee Dee Delivery Service, Inc.. (Zeidler, Edward) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendants Nathan Roesch, Spee-Dee Courier, Inc. f/k/a Spee Dee Delivery Service, Inc. Sent To: Plaintiff (Zeidler, Edward) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from St. Louis City Circuit Court, case number 2222-CC08421, with receipt number AMOEDC-9520866, in the amount of $402 Jury Demand,, filed by Nathan Roesch, Spee-Dee Courier, Inc. f/k/a Spee Dee Delivery Service, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Original Filing Form)(Zeidler, Edward) |
| Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig. All non-governmental organizational parties (corporations, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships) must file Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate within 10 days of the filing of the first pleading or entry of appearance # (moed-0001.pdf). (JBH) |
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.
