City of Brevard v. CDM Smith Inc.
Plaintiff: City of Brevard
Defendant: CDM Smith Inc.
Case Number: 1:2020cv00160
Filed: June 24, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Presiding Judge: W Carleton Metcalf
Referring Judge: Martin Reidinger
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 17, 2020 Filing 12 MEMORANDUM in Support re #11 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by CDM Smith Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Original Contract)(Kutrow, Bradley)
August 17, 2020 Filing 11 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by CDM Smith Inc.. Responses due by 8/31/2020 (Kutrow, Bradley). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
August 13, 2020 Filing 10 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Its Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss by CDM Smith Inc.. Responses due by 8/27/2020 (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Kutrow, Bradley). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
August 13, 2020 Opinion or Order TEXT-ONLY ORDER denying #10 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Text of Order: ORDER: Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limitation for its Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. The Amended Complaint sets forth three claims, and the Court is confident that Defendant will be able to brief the issues raised in its anticipated Motion to Dismiss within the 25-page limitation set by Local Civil Rule 7.1(d). So Ordered. Entered by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 8/13/2020. (kkb)
July 31, 2020 Opinion or Order TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. CDM Smith Inc. answer due 8/17/2020. Text of Order: ORDER: The Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED, and the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is EXTENDED by ten (10) days, through and including August 17, 2020. So Ordered. Entered by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 7/31/2020. (kkb)
July 30, 2020 Filing 9 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: #7 Amended Complaint, by CDM Smith Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Kutrow, Bradley). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
July 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Defendant's #3 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 7/23/2020. (khm)
July 22, 2020 Filing 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against CDM Smith Inc., filed by City of Brevard. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 6/15/2014 Email, #2 Exhibit 9/2014 Amendment, #3 Exhibit Test Results, #4 Exhibit Email from Mr. Sloop, #5 Exhibit Email from Mr. Lutz, #6 Exhibit Certificate of Completion)(Hornthal, Ann-Patton)
July 7, 2020 Filing 6 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: #3 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by City of Brevard. Responses due by 7/21/2020 (Clarke, William). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
July 7, 2020 Opinion or Order TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re #3 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Response due by 7/29/2020 Text of Order: ORDER: Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss is EXTENDED through and including July 29, 2020. So Ordered. Entered by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 7/7/2020. (kkb)
July 1, 2020 Filing 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by City of Brevard (Clarke, William)
July 1, 2020 Filing 4 MEMORANDUM in Support re #3 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by CDM Smith Inc.. (Kutrow, Bradley)
July 1, 2020 Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by CDM Smith Inc.. Responses due by 7/15/2020 (Kutrow, Bradley). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
June 24, 2020 Set Answer Deadline: CDM Smith Inc. answer due 7/1/2020. (ejb)
June 24, 2020 Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by CDM Smith Inc. (Kutrow, Bradley)
June 24, 2020 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand from Transylvania County Superior Court, case number 20-CVS-0049. (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0419-4548133), filed by CDM Smith Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Pleadings from Transylvania County Superior Court)(Kutrow, Bradley)
June 24, 2020 Case assigned to Chief Judge Martin Reidinger and Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf. Notice: You must click this link to retrieve the #Case Assignment Packet. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document. (ejb)

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

Search for this case: City of Brevard v. CDM Smith Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: City of Brevard
Represented By: Michael K. Pratt
Represented By: William Clarke
Represented By: Stephen Lacy Cash
Represented By: Ann-Patton Hornthal
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: CDM Smith Inc.
Represented By: Bradley R. Kutrow
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?