Study Logic LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
| Study Logic LLC |
| 7-Eleven, Inc. |
| 2:2018cv05499 |
| October 1, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Joan M Azrack |
| Arlene R Lindsay |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 19, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by 7-Eleven, Inc.. (Hopkins, Dennis) |
| Filing 11 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Remand / Cover Letter by Study Logic LLC. (Neuman, Jonathan) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Study Logic LLC. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibit 1 - Summons and Complaint, #3 Exhibit 2 - State Court Opposition Papers, #4 Certificate of Service) (Neuman, Jonathan) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by David R. Pekarek Krohn on behalf of 7-Eleven, Inc. (notification declined or already on case) (Pekarek Krohn, David) |
ORDER re #8 : The Motion of David Richter Pekarek Krohn for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice is granted. The attorney shall register for ECF, registration is available online at www.pacer.gov. Once registered, the attorney shall file a notice of appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Also, the attorney shall ensure that the 150 admission fee be submitted to the Clerks Office via filing the event Pro Hac Vice Filing Fee .. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 10/18/2018. c/ecf (Imrie, Robert)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number ANYEDC-10844985. by 7-Eleven, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of David Pekarek Krohn in Support of Motion to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice) (Pekarek Krohn, David) |
|
ORDER denying #5 Motion for Pre-Motion Conference and #6 Motion for Pre-Motion Conference. The Court's pre-motion conference requirement is waived. Plaintiff shall file its motion to remand by 10/18/18. Defendant's opposition shall be filed by 11/19/2018. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed by 12/3/18. The Court's "bundling" rule does not apply to this motion to remand. Defendant's pre-motion conference request concerning a proposed motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew after the motion to remand is decided. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 10/11/2018. (Terranova, Robert)
|
| Filing 7 Letter From Dennis Hopkins To The Hon. Joan M. Azrack In Response To The October 4, 2018 Pre-Motion Conference Letter Submitted By Study Logic, LLC by 7-Eleven, Inc. (Hopkins, Dennis) |
| Filing 6 Letter MOTION for pre motion conference by 7-Eleven, Inc.. (Hopkins, Dennis) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for pre motion conference re: motion to remand by Study Logic LLC. (Neuman, Jonathan) |
| Filing 4 Notice of Related Case indicated on the civil cover sheet in case number 18cv5499. (Rodin, Deanna) |
| Filing 3 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. (Rodin, Deanna) |
| Filing 2 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (Rodin, Deanna) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. 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. (Rodin, Deanna) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by 7-Eleven, Inc. from Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, case number 602162/2018. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0207-10768695) Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes (Attachments: #1 Exhibit s A-M to the Notice of Removal, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Hopkins, Dennis) Modified on 10/2/2018 (Rodin, Deanna). |
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
| Search for this case: Study Logic LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Dennis C. Hopkins |
| Represented By: | David R. Pekarek Krohn |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Study Logic LLC | |
| Represented By: | Jonathan Ellery Neuman |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
