Southern Ohio Sand Co. v. ProFrac Services, LLC
Southern Ohio Sand Co. |
ProFrac Services, LLC |
1:2019cv01686 |
July 23, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
Christopher A Boyko |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by ProFrac Services, LLC. (Akers, Patrick) |
Filing 7 Answer to #1 Complaint , Counterclaim against Southern Ohio Sand Co. filed by ProFrac Services, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit MPA, #2 Exhibit Letter Agreement, #3 Exhibit Correspondence, #4 Exhibit Amendment 1 to Letter Agreement)(Akers, Patrick) |
Filing 6 Notice of Case Management Conference with case management conference to be held on 11/14/2019 at 11:30 AM in Chambers 15B. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 8/22/2019. (Attachments: #1 Report of the Parties Planning Meeting, #2 Consent Package)(D, I) |
Order [non-document] granting #5 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Plead in Response to Plaintiff's Complaint. ProFrac Services, LLC answer due 9/10/2019. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 8/14/2019.(D, I) |
Filing 5 Unopposed Motion for extension of time until 9/10/2019 to answer , move or otherwise Plead in Response to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Defendant ProFrac Services, LLC. Related document #1 . (Lampley, Nathaniel) |
Filing 4 Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail executed upon ProFrac Services, LLC on 7/30/2019, filed on behalf of Southern Ohio Sand Co. Related document(s) #3 . (W,CM) |
Service by Clerk. Summons and Complaint addressed to ProFrac Services, LLC placed in U.S. Mail. Type of service: certified mail. Receipt # 70162140000102826417. (Y,A) |
Filing 3 Original Summons and Magistrate Consent Form issued to counsel for service upon ProFrac Services, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form) (Y,A) |
Judge Christopher A. Boyko assigned to case, (Y,A) |
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker. (Y,A) |
Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Southern Ohio Sand Co. (Cardone, Thomas) |
Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand against ProFrac Services, LLC. Filing fee paid $400. Receipt number 0647-9432542. Filed by Southern Ohio Sand Co. (Attachments: #1 Summons, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Cardone, Thomas) |
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 Ohio Northern 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
Search for this case: Southern Ohio Sand Co. v. ProFrac Services, LLC | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Southern Ohio Sand Co. | |
Represented By: | Thomas E. Cardone |
Represented By: | Ian H. Frank |
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: ProFrac Services, LLC | |
Represented By: | Patrick R. Akers |
Represented By: | Nathaniel Lampley, Jr. |
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.