Mezarina v. The Sygma Network, Inc. et al
| Ferrer Mezarina |
| Jeffrey Black and The Sygma Network, Inc. |
| 1:2020cv01156 |
| March 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Peggy Kuo |
| Roslynn R Mauskopf |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER granting #11 Motion to Strike. The request to substitute the Proposed Discovery Plan at #11 is granted. The filing at #10 is stricken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo on 4/20/2020. (O'Neil-Berven, Ryan)
|
| Filing 11 Proposed Scheduling Order (with letter to Judge Kuo requesting withdrawal of the April 15, 2020 Proposed Discovery Plan) by Jeffrey Black, The Sygma Network, Inc. (Haworth, Scott) Modified on 4/20/2020 to reflect this is a motion (O'Neil-Berven, Ryan). |
| Filing 10 Proposed Scheduling Order Proposed Discovery Schedule by Jeffrey Black, The Sygma Network, Inc. (Haworth, Scott) |
| Filing 9 CASE REFERRED to Arbitration. This case has been designated to participate in the Court Annexed Arbitration Program pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.7(d). The Rule requires the Clerk of Court to designate and process for compulsory arbitration "all civil cases (excluding social security cases, tax matters, prisoners' civil rights cases, and any action based on an alleged violation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States or if jurisdiction is based in whole or in part on Title 28 U.S.C. sec. 1343) wherein money damages only are being sought in an amount not in excess of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs." Damages are presumed not to be in excess of the arbitration limit unless a certification is filed in accordance with Local Civil Rule 83.7(d) (3). An Arbitration Hearing will be scheduled after an Answer is filed. The hearing will occur approximately 120 days after filing of the Answer. (Credle, Rita) |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to Complaint by All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service) (Haworth, Scott) |
|
Filing 7
SCHEDULING ORDER: An Initial Conference will be held in this case on June 2, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. before Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge, in Courtroom 11C South of the United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York. All counsel are required to attend. Counsel are directed to the annexed Initial Conference Order for instructions. At least five days before the Conference, the parties must file a joint and completed copy of the Proposed Discovery Plan, a PDF version of which may be found at: # https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/PK-discovplan.pdf Any request for adjournment of this or any other conference must be made in writing on notice to opposing parties, and must disclose whether or not all parties consent. No request for adjournment will be considered unless made at least two (2) business days before the scheduled conference, except in the event of an emergency. Counsel with knowledge and authority must be present. Per diem counsel may not appear without prior permission of the Court. Defendants' counsel is directed to ensure that plaintiff is aware of this conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo on 3/3/2020. (O'Neil-Berven, Ryan)
|
| Filing 6 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 5 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Jeffrey Black, The Sygma Network, Inc. re #2 Corporate Disclosure Statement, #3 Notice(Other), #1 Notice of Removal, (Haworth, Scott) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Jeffrey Black, The Sygma Network, Inc. re #1 Notice of Removal, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A - FILED Notice of Filing Notice of Removal without exhibit [NYSCEF] 3.3.20) (Haworth, Scott) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Jeffrey Black, The Sygma Network, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Sysco Holdings, LLC for The Sygma Network, Inc.. (Haworth, Scott) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Jeffrey Black, The Sygma Network, Inc. from Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, case number 700552/2020. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ANYEDC-12479174) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Summons and Verified Complaint dated 1-13-20, #2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Haworth, Scott) |
| Case Assigned to Chief Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf and Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Davis, Kimberly) |
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 York Eastern 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.
