Rahl v. New York Telephone Company

Rahl v. New York Telephone Company

Plaintiff:	John E. Rahl
Defendant:	New York Telephone Company
Case Number:	1:2009cv01165
Filed:	October 19, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Albany Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	David R. Homer
Presiding Judge:	Gary L. Sharpe
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 24, 2010	Filing 30 MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Verizon's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED. That Verizon's request for a permanent injunction (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED. That Rahl is granted leave to file an amended complaint, in full complianc e with the terms of this Order, withing thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order, after which Verizon shall respond to the complaint as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That is Rahl fails to file an amended com plaint within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of the court. ( Date Served 8/24/2010, Notice of Compliance Deadline 9/23/2010, Case Review Deadline 9/30/2010). Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 8/23/2010. (jel, )
September 30, 2009	Filing 15 OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Change Venue. This case is transferred to USDC for the Northern District of New York. Signed by Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 09/30/2009. (wjf) [Transferred from Vermont on 10/19/2009.]

Date Filed

Document Text

August 24, 2010

Filing 30 MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER - That Verizon's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED. That Verizon's request for a permanent injunction (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED. That Rahl is granted leave to file an amended complaint, in full complianc e with the terms of this Order, withing thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order, after which Verizon shall respond to the complaint as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That is Rahl fails to file an amended com plaint within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of the court. ( Date Served 8/24/2010, Notice of Compliance Deadline 9/23/2010, Case Review Deadline 9/30/2010). Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 8/23/2010. (jel, )

September 30, 2009

Filing 15 OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Change Venue. This case is transferred to USDC for the Northern District of New York. Signed by Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 09/30/2009. (wjf) [Transferred from Vermont on 10/19/2009.]

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rahl v. New York Telephone Company
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: John E. Rahl
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 ]
Defendant: New York Telephone Company
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.

Why Is My Information Online?