Wang v. AT&T Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Hao Zhe Wang
Defendant: North Lane Technologies Inc. and AT&T Inc.
Case Number: 1:2024cv04198
Filed: May 31, 2024
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Margaret M Garnett
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Cause of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 23, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 23, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #19 Response to Motion terminating #18 Letter Motion to Reopen. ENDORSEMENT: GRANTED. The deadline for the parties to finalize their settlement agreement is HEREBY EXTENDED until August 23, 2024. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 18. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 7/23/2024) (mml)
July 23, 2024 Filing 19 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Margaret M. Garnett from Marsha J. Indych dated 07/23/2024 re: #18 LETTER MOTION to Reopen addressed to Judge Margaret M. Garnett from Hao Zhe Wang. Joint request by all parties for 30-day extension of time to finalize settlement agreement. Document filed by AT&T Inc...(Indych, Marsha)
July 23, 2024 Filing 18 LETTER MOTION to Reopen addressed to Judge Margaret M. Garnett from Hao Zhe Wang. Document filed by Hao Zhe Wang..(Wang, Hao Zhe)
June 28, 2024 Filing 17 NOTICE of Certificate of Service re: #15 Notice of Appearance, #16 Waiver of Service Executed. Document filed by North Lane Technologies Inc...(Blase, Gregory)
June 28, 2024 Filing 16 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. North Lane Technologies Inc. waiver sent on 6/7/2024, answer due 8/6/2024. Document filed by North Lane Technologies Inc...(Blase, Gregory)
June 28, 2024 Filing 15 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Gregory Blase on behalf of North Lane Technologies Inc...(Blase, Gregory)
June 24, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 14 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #3 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 2 of Complaint (ECF Doc. No.1-2) filed by Hao Zhe Wang. ENDORSEMENT: The motion to seal the Arbitration Award is HEREBY GRANTED. Although "[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history," this right is not absolute, and courts "must balance competing considerations against" the presumption of access. Lugosch v.Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) ("[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case."). The Court having reviewed the documents finds good cause to seal them. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to seal Dkt. No. 1-2 and Dkt. No. 4-2. Access is restricted to attorneys appearing for the parties, pro se parties with ECF access and court personnel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 6/21/2024) (mml)
June 24, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court having been advised that that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, Dkt. No. 12, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs (including attorneys' fees) and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 30 days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen to be "so ordered" by the Court. Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. Any pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 6/24/2024) (mml)
June 21, 2024 Filing 12 LETTER addressed to Judge Margaret M. Garnett from Marsha J. Indych dated June 21, 2024 re: Settlement. Document filed by AT&T Inc...(Indych, Marsha)
June 21, 2024 Filing 11 LETTER RESPONSE in Support of Motion addressed to Judge Margaret M. Garnett from Marsha J. Indych dated June 21, 2024 re: #3 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 2 of Complaint (ECF Doc. No.1-2). , 4-2) and to Seal the Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 4). Document filed by AT&T Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Stipulated Protective Order).(Indych, Marsha)
June 20, 2024 Filing 10 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY (SEE #11 Letter Response) - LETTER RESPONSE in Support of Motion addressed to Judge Margaret M. Garnett from Marsha J. Indych dated June 20, 2024 re: #3 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 2 of Complaint (ECF Doc. No.1-2). , 4-2) and to Seal the Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 4). Document filed by AT&T Inc. (Indych, Marsha) Modified on 6/21/2024 (db). As per ECF-ERROR Email Correspondence Received on 6/21/2024 @ 10:28am.
June 13, 2024 Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. AT&T Inc. waiver sent on 6/7/2024, answer due 8/6/2024..(kgo)
June 13, 2024 Filing 8 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Marsha Jessica Indych on behalf of AT&T Inc...(Indych, Marsha)
June 13, 2024 Filing 7 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by AT&T Inc...(Joseph, Andrew)
June 13, 2024 Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew Bradford Joseph on behalf of AT&T Inc...(Joseph, Andrew)
June 3, 2024 Filing 4 COMPLAINT against AT&T Inc., North Lane Technologies Inc.. Document filed by Hao Zhe Wang. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4).(Wang, Hao Zhe)
June 3, 2024 Case Designated ECF. (jgo)
June 3, 2024 Magistrate Judge James L. Cott is designated to handle matters that may be referred in this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (jgo)
June 3, 2024 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Margaret M. Garnett. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(jgo)
June 3, 2024 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING. Notice to Attorney Hao Zhe Wang to RE-FILE Document No. #1 Complaint. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the wrong party/parties whom the pleading is against were selected. Re-file the pleading using the event type Complaint found under the event list Complaints and Other Initiating Documents - attach the correct signed PDF - select the individually named filer/filers - select the individually named party/parties the pleading is against. (jgo)
May 31, 2024 Filing 5 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Hao Zhe Wang consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Hao Zhe Wang. (vfr)
May 31, 2024 Filing 3 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 2 of Complaint (ECF Doc. No.1-2). Document filed by Hao Zhe Wang..(Wang, Hao Zhe)
May 31, 2024 Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Wang, Hao Zhe)
May 31, 2024 Filing 1 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT PLEADING - FILED AGAINST PARTY ERROR COMPLAINT against Hao Zhe Wang. (Filing Fee $ 405.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-29428742)Document filed by Hao Zhe Wang. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit exhibit 4).(Wang, Hao Zhe) Modified on 6/3/2024 (jgo).

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Wang v. AT&T Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: North Lane Technologies Inc.
Represented By: Gregory Blase
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: AT&T Inc.
Represented By: Marsha Jessica Indych
Represented By: Andrew Bradford Joseph
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: Hao Zhe Wang
Represented By: Hao Zhe Wang
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?