Alexander v. Emrich et al
| Claude Young Alexander |
| John A. Emrich, Robert Nolan, David Taylor, Richard Novak, David Falkenstein and Guilford Mills, LLC |
| 7:2022cv00214 |
| December 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Brian S Meyers |
| Richard E Myers |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1330 Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
Order Redesignating Division to Southern Division. The Honorable Richard E. Myers II, Chief United States District Judge, will remain the presiding judge. All future filings should reflect the new case number of 7:22-CV-214-M-BM. No further filing shall be made in 5:22-CV-495-M-BM.Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 12/8/2022. (McNally, Kimberly)
|
| Case transferred in from Western Division on 12/09/2022. Former Case Number: 5:22-cv-495-M-BM. (McNally, Kimberly) |
| Filing 2 Notice regarding #1 Notice of Removal and requirement to make a Notice of Appearance sent to Plaintiff's Counsel, Christopher A. Chelborowicz, Elijah T. Hutson and Levi Hutson of Chelborowicz Law Firm, PLLC at 720 North Third Street, Suite 201, Wilmington, NC 28401 mailed via US Mail on December 8, 2022. (Rudd, D.) |
| Notice to Counsel regarding: #1 Notice of Removal Counsel did not properly identify attachments pursuant to Section V.E. of the CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual. Attachments must be clearly labeled (i.e., "Exhibit" is not a sufficient description). Additionally, when filing a document with more than five attachments, the first attachment must be an index of all of the subsequent attached documents. No further action is needed. (Rudd, D.) |
| Notice to Counsel - Counsel should file a Notice of Appearance pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(a). (Rudd, D.) |
| Notice to Counsel - This case should have been filed in the Southern division. The Clerk will enter a reassignment order correcting the error. (Rudd, D.) |
| Notice to Counsel regarding: [1-1] Civil Cover Sheet. Counsel is reminded that the filing user must lock or flatten the PDF document. Failure to flatten documents may result in the clerks office issuing a notice of deficiency. Counsel should "flatten" (the civil cover sheet) prior to attaching it in accordance with Section IV.B of the CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual. No further action is needed. (Rudd, D.) |
| NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Failure to File Financial Disclosure Statement as to Guilford Mills, LLC. Pursuant to 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 7.3, all parties shall file a financial disclosure statement. A negative statement is required if a party has no disclosures to make. The disclosure statement must be on a form provided by the clerk. This form is available at the clerk's office and on the court's website. (Rudd, D.) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Guilford Mills, LLC f/d/b/a Guilford Mills, Inc. from New Hanover County, case number 22 CVS 3696. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANCEDC-6856062), filed by Guilford Mills, LLC f/d/b/a Guilford Mills, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Removal Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit A- State Court Summons and Complaint, #4 Exhibit B- Copy of stipulation of dismissal from state court as to defendants John Emrich, Robert Nolan, David Taylor and Richard Novak) (Berkelhammer, Jonathan) Modified on 12/8/2022 to describe exhibits. (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.
