Krutz v. City of Sparks et al
| Neil C Krutz |
| City of Sparks, Ed Lawson, Donald Abbott, Dian Vanderwell, Paul Anderson, Charlene Bybee and Kristopher Dahir |
| 2:2025cv00526 |
| March 21, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 21, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to LR IA 1-8 this case is being transferred to the unofficial Northern District of the District of Nevada and assigned case number 3:25-cv-00159. All further documents are to be filed in that case. This case is closed. (WJ) |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REMOVAL from Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, In and for the County of Washoe, Case Number CV25-00464, (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANVDC-7993765) by Ed Lawson, Kristopher Dahir, CITY OF SPARKS, Donald Abbott, Dian Vanderwell, Paul Anderson, Charlene Bybee. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 3/31/2025. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Smith, Brianna) 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.
