H&R Block Enterprises LLC v. Morrill
| H&R Block Enterprises LLC |
| Bartley B. Morrill |
| 4:2021cv00040 |
| January 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Roseann Ketchmark |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #3 Joint MOTION to seal document. Signed by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #2 Joint MOTION for order for Approval of Confidential Settlement Agreement, Entry of Consent Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment. Signed on February 22, 2021 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of appearance by Bartley B. Morrill. Defendant proceeding pro se. (Crocker, Susan) |
| Filing 5 RETURN OF WAIVER OF SERVICE filed by H&R Block Enterprises LLC. Waiver sent to Bartley B. Morrill on 1/25/2021, answer due 3/26/2021. (Gilman, Stacey) |
| Filing 4 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of Plaintiff H&R Block Enterprises LLC.(Gilman, Stacey) |
| NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 1/22/2021 as Document No. 2, Exhibit B. The proposed order attached to the motion has been deleted. Per Administrative Procedures any proposed orders are to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy in Word format. This is a text entry only - no document is attached. (Woods, Gloria) |
| Filing 3 Joint MOTION to seal document filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of H&R Block Enterprises LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/5/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Gilman, Stacey) |
| Filing 2 Joint MOTION for order for Approval of Confidential Settlement Agreement, Entry of Consent Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of H&R Block Enterprises LLC. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/5/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Gilman, Stacey) Modified on 1/25/2021 to reflect Proposed Order (Exhibit B) was deleted from docket entry. (Woods, Gloria). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Bartley B. Morrill filed by Stacey R. Gilman on behalf of H&R Block Enterprises LLC. Filing fee $402, receipt number AMOWDC-7248090. Service due by 4/22/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gilman, Stacey) |
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 Western 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
| Search for this case: H&R Block Enterprises LLC v. Morrill | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Bartley B. Morrill | |
| 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: H&R Block Enterprises LLC | |
| Represented By: | Stacey R. Gilman |
| 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.
