BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC. v. JM HOSPITALITY, LLC et al
| BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC. |
| VIMAL PATEL and JM HOSPITALITY, LLC |
| 2:2020cv14095 |
| October 8, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Mark Falk |
| John Michael Vazquez |
| Contract: Franchise |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
NOTICE AND ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL without prejudice, etc. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 11/9/2020. (lag, )
|
| Filing 4 Proposed Order NOTICE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.. (COUCH, BRYAN) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS ISSUED as to JM HOSPITALITY, LLC, VIMAL PATEL. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (wh) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC. identifying WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC as Corporate Parent.. (COUCH, BRYAN) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against JM HOSPITALITY, LLC, VIMAL PATEL ( Filing and Admin fee $ 400 receipt number ANJDC-11474084), filed by BAYMONT FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(COUCH, BRYAN) |
| CASE REFERRED to Arbitration. (jr) |
| Case assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez and Chief Mag. Judge Mark Falk. (jr) |
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 New Jersey 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.
