Akerman v. INUVO, Inc. et al
| Morris Akerman |
| Charles Morgan, Richard Howe, Patrick Terrell, Gordon Cameron, G. Kent Burnett, Paul L. Foster and INUVO, Inc. |
| 2:2018cv02407 |
| December 20, 2018 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Richard F Boulware |
| Nancy J Koppe |
| Securities/Commodities |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 21, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by G. Kent Burnett, Gordon Cameron, Paul L. Foster, Richard Howe, INUVO, Inc., Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell that identifies all parties that have an interest in the outcome of this case. Corporate Parent INUVO, Inc. for INUVO, Inc. added. (Newby, Craig) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/5/2019. Each non-governmental party is required to file a certificate of interested parties concurrently with its first appearance in a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(b)(1); Local Rule 7.1-1(c). Defendants failed to file a certificate of interested parties. Accordingly, Defendants must file certificates of interested parties no later than February 12, 2019. IT IS SO ORDERED.(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TM) |
| Filing 9 APPENDIX Volume IV to #5 Motion to Dismiss, by Defendants G. Kent Burnett, Gordon Cameron, Paul L. Foster, Richard Howe, INUVO, Inc., Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell. (Newby, Craig) |
| Filing 8 APPENDIX Volume III to #5 Motion to Dismiss, by Defendants G. Kent Burnett, Gordon Cameron, Paul L. Foster, Richard Howe, INUVO, Inc., Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell. (Newby, Craig) |
| Filing 7 APPENDIX Volume II to #5 Motion to Dismiss, by Defendants G. Kent Burnett, Gordon Cameron, Paul L. Foster, Richard Howe, INUVO, Inc., Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell. (Newby, Craig) |
| Filing 6 APPENDIX Volume I to #5 Motion to Dismiss, by Defendants G. Kent Burnett, Gordon Cameron, Paul L. Foster, Richard Howe, INUVO, Inc., Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell. (Newby, Craig) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants G. Kent Burnett, Gordon Cameron, Paul L. Foster, Richard Howe, INUVO, Inc., Charles Morgan, Patrick Terrell. Responses due by 2/18/2019. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 3/21/2019. (Newby, Craig) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to INUVO, Inc. (JM) |
| Filing 3 PROPOSED SUMMONS to be issued for Inuvo, Inc. by Plaintiff Morris Akerman. (Wetherall, Peter) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Morris Akerman. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (Wetherall, Peter) |
| Case assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe. (JM) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0978-5368310) by Morris Akerman. Proof of service due by 3/20/2019. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit)(Wetherall, Peter) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nevada 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.
