Dunn et al v. Magee Escapes LLC et al
| Robert Dunn and Robert Dunn Construction of New Bern Inc |
| Magee Escapes LLC, Angie Magee and David Magee |
| 4:2018cv00190 |
| November 19, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| James C Dever |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
ORDER granting #17 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer regarding #12 Counterclaim. The time for Plaintiffs to file an Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim is extended up to and including the 16th day of January, 2019, and that the Answer to Defendants' Counterclaim [D.E. 16], filed on that date, is hereby deemed timely filed. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever, III on 1/17/2019. (Stouch, L.)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer regarding #16 Response to Defendants' Counterclaim filed by Robert Dunn. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (Hart, Scott) |
| Filing 16 RESPONSE regarding #12 Answer to Complaint (Notice of Removal),, Counterclaim, filed by Robert Dunn. (Hart, Scott) |
| Motion Submitted to District Judge James C. Dever, III regarding #17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer regarding #16 Response to Defendants' Counterclaim. (Stouch, L.) |
| Filing 15 Proposed Order regarding #10 Joint MOTION to Remand filed by Robert Dunn. (Hart, Scott) |
| Motion Submitted to District Judge James C. Dever III regarding #10 Joint MOTION to Remand. (Sellers, N.) |
| Filing 14 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding #10 Joint MOTION to Remand filed by Robert Dunn. (Hart, Scott) |
| Notice to Counsel regarding: #10 Motion to Remand. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(b)(3) and Section V(I)(3) of the CM/ECF Policy and Procedures Manual and Judge Dever's practice preferences, parties must file a proposed order with any non-dispositive motion. Please file a proposed order using the event 'Proposed Order' in the Responses and Replies category and link it back to the motion to which it corresponds. (Sellers, N.) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE to Motion regarding #10 Joint MOTION to Remand filed by Angie Magee, David Magee, Magee Escapes LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Affidavit, #2 Exhibit B - Affidavit, #3 Exhibit C - Tax Record, #4 Exhibit D - Affidavit) (Webb, William) |
| Filing 12 ANSWER to Complaint , COUNTERCLAIM against All Plaintiffs by David Magee, Magee Escapes LLC, Angie Magee. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Contract, #2 Exhibit B - Invoice, #3 Exhibit C - Affidavit of David Magee, #4 Exhibit D - Affidavit of Angie Magee, #5 Exhibit E - Affidavit of Scott Gurganus) (Webb, William) |
| Filing 11 Memorandum in Support regarding #10 Joint MOTION to Remand filed by Robert Dunn, Robert Dunn Construction of New Bern Inc. (Hart, Scott) |
| Filing 10 Joint MOTION to Remand filed by Robert Dunn, Robert Dunn Construction of New Bern Inc. (Hart, Scott) |
| Filing 9 Notice of Appearance filed by Scott C. Hart on behalf of Robert Dunn, Robert Dunn Construction of New Bern Inc. (Hart, Scott) |
| Filing 8 Notice of Appearance filed by William W. Webb, Sr on behalf of All Defendants. (Webb, William) |
| Filing 7 Notice regarding #2 Notice of Removal Amended requirement to make a Notice of Appearance sent to Plaintiff's counsel Richard L. Stanley of Stanley & Poindexter, PLLC at 611 Cedar Street, Suite F, PO Box 150, Beaufort, NC 28516 mailed via US Mail on November 20, 2018. (Rudd, D.) |
| Notice to Counsel regarding: #2 Notice of Removal - Counsel did not properly identify exhibits pursuant to Section V.E. of the CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual. Attachments must be clearly labeled (i.e. "Exhibit A" is not a sufficient description). Additionally, when filing a documents with more than five exhibits, the first exhibit must be a index of all of the subsequent attached documents. No further action is needed at this time. (Rudd, D.) |
| Notice to Counsel regarding: #2 Notice of Removal. Counsel is reminded that all pleadings must comply with Local Rule 10.1(a) in regards to spacing, which you may obtain on the court's website at www.nced.uscourts.gov. Your documents must be double-spaced. No need to re-file at this time. (Sellers, N.) |
| Filing 6 Financial Disclosure Statement by Magee Escapes LLC (Webb, William) |
| Filing 5 Financial Disclosure Statement by Angie Magee (Webb, William) |
| Filing 4 Financial Disclosure Statement by David Magee (Webb, William) |
| Filing 3 Notice of Appearance filed by William Woodward Webb, Jr on behalf of All Defendants. (Webb, William) |
| Filing 2 AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL by All Defendants AMENDED from Carteret County Superior Court, case number 18 CVS 1040. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0417-4730895), filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A- State Court Complaint and Summons, #2 Exhibit B- State Court Extension of Time, #3 Exhibit Notice of Removal - Carteret County, #4 Civil Cover Sheet, #5 Civil Cover Sheet Supplemental Removal Cover Sheet) (Webb, William) Modified on 11/20/2018 to reflect amended. (Rudd, D.) Modified on 11/20/2018 to describe exhibits. (Rudd, D.) |
| Filing 1 SEE DE #2 for AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL by All Defendants from Carteret County Superior Court, case number 18 CVS 1040. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0417-4730895), filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplement Supplemental Removal Civil Cover Sheet) (Webb, William) Modified on 11/20/2018 to reflect amended notice of removal filed at DE #2 . (Rudd, D.) |
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.
- 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.
