WARREN v. KING et al
| TINIKA SECAL WARREN |
| MATTHEW KING, HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 1:2023cv00990 |
| November 16, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| THOMAS D SCHROEDER |
| JOE L WEBSTER |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Answer updated for All Defendants. Answer due 2/22/2024. (sh) |
Filing 12
ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 01/08/2024, that the United States has been substituted for Matthew King as the sole defendant for those claims. (lg)
|
| Filing 11 Roseboro Letter - Right to Respond re: #9 Motion to Dismiss. (sh) |
| TEXT ORDER granting #7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer filed by All Defendants. Upon motion of the defendants Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (sued as HUD Office Greensboro) and Matthew King (collectively "Defendants"), and good cause having been found, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants are granted a 45-day extension of time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint (Doc. 3), and to file any notice(s) of substitution that may be warranted. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim #9 is deemed timely filed. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 01/08/2024.(aet) |
| Filing 10 BRIEF re #9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO filed by HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO. (STRUP, NATHAN) |
| Filing 9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO. Response to Motion due by 1/26/2024 (STRUP, NATHAN) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE by HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO of Substitution (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certification by U.S. Attorney, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(STRUP, NATHAN) |
| Motion Referred: RE: #7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #3 Complaint (45-day Extension), to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (km) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #3 Complaint (45-day Extension) by HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO, MATTHEW KING. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(STRUP, NATHAN) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney NATHAN L. STRUP on behalf of Defendants HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO, MATTHEW KING (STRUP, NATHAN) |
| Case ASSIGNED to JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER and MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (al) |
| Filing 5 Notice of Right to Consent. (Attachments: #1 Consent to jurisdiction)(al) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued on 11/07/2023 as to HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO, MATTHEW KING. (State court documents originally filed in Guilford County Civil Court, case number 23CVM17528 listed as Exhibit 1 to the #1 Petition for Removal.) (Lee, Ashley) |
| Filing 3 COMPLAINT for Money Owed against Matthew King, HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO filed by TINIKA SECAL WARREN.(State court documents originally filed in Guilford County Civil Court, case number 23CVM17528 listed as Exhibit 1 to the #1 Petition for Removal.)(al) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE to State Court of Filing Petition for Removal by Defendants HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO, MATTHEW KING (STRUP, NATHAN) |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REMOVAL from Guilford County Civil court, Case number 23CVM 17528 against TINIKA SECAL WARREN, filed by HUD OFFICE GREENSBORO, MATTHEW KING. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(STRUP, NATHAN) Modified to add state court information on 11/16/2023 (al). |
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 North Carolina Middle 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
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.
