Koning et al v. Baisden
Plaintiff: Michael Koning and Susan Koning
Defendant: Lowell Baisden
Case Number: 4:2008cv03087
Filed: April 23, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: Contract: Other Office
County: Douglas
Presiding Judge: David L. Piester
Presiding Judge: Warren K. Urbom
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 77 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - 1. The motion for stay, filing no. 71 , is granted, and the motion to withdraw brief in opposition, filing no. 76 , is granted. 2. All motions, hearings, deadlines, conferences and other matters in this case are stayed until further order of this court. 3. At such time as the criminal case of 4:09CR3031 has been closed, the parties in this case shall confer and inform this court of their views regarding the re-activation of this case and the scheduling of it for ultimate resolution. 4. The clerk shall close this case file for statistical purposes until further order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
January 26, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER denying 40 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (EJL)
December 29, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 48 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The motion to strike interrogatories filed by plaintiffs and counter defendants Michael Koning and Susan Koning, filing no. 38 , is granted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
November 19, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER denying 30 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (EJL)
October 22, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 33 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding: Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting 31 filed by Susan Koning, Michael Koning. The court cannot accept an ex parte planning report. IT THEREFORE HEREBY IS ORDERED: 1. Filing no. 31 , Report of Planning Meeting, is stricken. 2. The parties are given until ten days following the court's ruling resolving the pending motion to dismiss (filing no. 30 ) in which to file their joint Report of Planning Meeting. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
October 1, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER denying 24 Defendant's Statement of Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying the Defendant's Motion for a Change of Venue. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (EJL)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Koning et al v. Baisden
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Koning
Represented By: Larry A. Holle
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: Susan Koning
Represented By: Larry A. Holle
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 ]
Defendant: Lowell Baisden
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.


Why Is My Information Online?