SAT Technology, Inc. et al v. CECO Environmental Corp.
| SAT Technology, Inc., Hong-Yang Tseng and Superior Air Treatment Technology, Inc. |
| CECO Environmental Corp. |
| 1:2018cv00907 |
| December 28, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Michael R Barrett |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 19, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to CECO Environmental Corp. on 1/31/2019, answer due 4/1/2019. (Richardson, Michael)
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE of Appearance by Brian Robert Redden for Defendant CECO Environmental Corp. (Redden, Brian)
|
|
If this case is referred, it will be to Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. (bjc)
|
|
Filing 3
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiff Superior Air Treatment Technology, Inc.. (Richardson, Michael)
|
|
Filing 2
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiff SAT Technology, Inc.. (Richardson, Michael)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against CECO Environmental Corp. ( Filing fee $ 400 paid - receipt number: 0648-6732758), filed by SAT Technology, Inc., Hong-Yang Tseng, Superior Air Treatment Technology, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Exhibit A) (Richardson, Michael)
|
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 Southern 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.
