Bridges v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. et al
| Jim R. Bridges |
| General Electric Capital and J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. |
| 8:2013cv00157 |
| May 20, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Joseph F. Bataillon |
| Thomas D. Thalken |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
100
ORDER - The plaintiff's Motion to Extend Discovery Motions and Deposition Deadlines (Filing No. 95 ) is granted to the extent the parties shall have until May 28, 2015, to complete depositions, and denied in all other respects. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
|
|
Filing
94
AMENDED ORDER SETTING FINAL SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSION OF CASE - The parties' Joint Motion to Amend Order Setting Final Schedule for Progression of Case (Filing No. 93 ) is granted as set forth below. All depositions, whether or not they are intended to be used at trial, shall be completed by April 28, 2015. The Final Pretrial Conference with the undersigned magistrate judge is set for June 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in chambers, Suite 2271, Roman L. Hruska United States Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska. Trial is set to commence, at the court's call, during the week of July 20, 2015, in Omaha, Nebraska, before the Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon and a jury for two to three days. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER- The plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 39 ) is granted to the extent the plaintiff may amend his FCRA claims but denied in all other respects. The plaintiff shall have until June 30, 2014, to file a second ame nded complaint. The plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 43 ) is denied. Pursuant to NECivR 72.2 any objection to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER that Attorney John M. Heida has a pending case in this court and has not paid the 2013/2014 Attorney Assessment. Within 30 days from the date of this order, Mr. Heida is directed to pay the $20.00 fee or show cause why he is unable to do so. Show Cause Deadline set for 6/27/2014. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (MTB)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Filing No. 21 ) is granted. The plaintiff shall file a clean copy of the proposed amended complaint (Filing No. 21 , Attachment 1) within 3 days of the date of this order. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead within 14 days thereafter. The defendants' motion to dismiss (Filing No. 8 ) is denied as moot, without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (AOA)
|
|
Filing
23
STRICKEN - MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The plaintiff's motion for leave to amend (Filing No. 21 ) is granted. The plaintiff's amended complaint (Filing No. 21 , Attachment 1) is deemed filed instanter. The defendants' motion to dismiss ( Filing No. 8 ) is denied as moot, without prejudice to reassertion. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead within 14 days of the date of this order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (AOA) Modified on 11/5/2013 to strike pursuant to filing 24 (AOA).
|
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 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.
