Fischer v. Sazerac Company, Inc. et al
| Angela Fischer |
| Sazerac Company, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 |
| 4:2023cv00583 |
| May 3, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Stephen R Clark |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 Docket Text ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court dismisses this action with prejudice, pursuant to the parties' #19 Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. Signed by Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark on 5/24/2023. (LNJ) |
| Filing 19 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 18 MOTION to Stay re #11 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Motion to Stay Briefing on Substantive Motions Until Jurisdiction Established by Plaintiff Angela Fischer. (Harvath, Daniel) |
| Filing 17 REPLY to Response to Motion re #8 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Missouri State Court filed by Plaintiff Angela Fischer. (Harvath, Daniel) |
| Filing 16 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #8 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Missouri State Court filed by Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
Filing 15
ORDER: Plaintiff Angela Fischer has attempted to dismiss this action under Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But that Rule states: "[T]he plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc., has filed a motion for summary judgment, Doc. 11, so Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not apply and Plaintiffs notice, Doc. 14, is a nullity. Instead, the Federal Rules contemplate "a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared" at this stage, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), or a motion under Rule 41(a)(2). Because Plaintiff filed a notice under Rule 41(a)(1) (A)(i), rather than a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or motion under Rule 41(a)(2), this case remains live, and Local Rule 4.01 continues to govern the response deadlines to Defendants motions, Docs. 8, 11. Signed by Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark on 5/19/23. (JAB)
|
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Angela Fischer Without Prejudice (Harvath, Daniel) |
| Filing 13 STATEMENT of Material Facts re #11 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1 - Ron Purges Declaration, #2 Attachment 2 - Abay Patel Declaration)(Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 12 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re #11 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 10 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Plaintiff Angela Fischer. No corporate parents or affiliates identified. (Harvath, Daniel) |
| Filing 9 Electronic Notice re: Disclosure Statement to Plaintiff Angela Fischer. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.09, every nongovernmental corporate party or nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene in any case, and every party or intervenor in an action in which jurisdiction is based upon diversity, must file a Disclosure Statement immediately upon entering its appearance in the case. Please complete and file the certificate as soon as possible and add all individuals and entities into CM/ECF as required # (moed-0001.pdf). (LNJ) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court to Missouri State Court by Plaintiff Angela Fischer. (Harvath, Daniel) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc. Sent To: State Court - Executed (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 6 ENTRY of Appearance by Cicely I. Lubben for Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Lubben, Cicely) |
| Filing 5 ENTRY of Appearance by Sandra Jane Wunderlich for Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 4 Petition (Removal/Transfer) Received From: St. Louis County Circuit Court, filed by Angela Fischer.(JBH) |
| Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.09, every nongovernmental corporate party or nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene in any case, and every party or intervenor in an action in which jurisdiction is based upon diversity, must file a Disclosure Statement immediately upon entering its appearance in the case. Please complete and file the certificate as soon as possible. # (moed-0001.pdf). (JBH) |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Defendants Sazerac Company, Inc., Domaine Sazerac De Segonzac SCEA.. (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendant Sazerac Company, Inc. Sent To: Plaintiff (Wunderlich, Sandra) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Circuit Court for St. Louis County State of Missouri, case number 23SL-CC01308, with receipt number AMOEDC-9928566, in the amount of $402 Jury Demand,, filed by Sazerac Company, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - State Court File, #2 Exhibit B - Original Filing Form, #3 Exhibit C - Civil Cover Sheet)(Wunderlich, Sandra) |
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.
