Lahti v. Consensys, Inc. et al
| Sarah Lahti |
| Consensys, Inc. and Alphabet, Inc. |
| 1:2024cv00183 |
| April 2, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Stephanie K Bowman |
| Jeffery P Hopkins |
| Contract: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 NOTICE by Defendant Alphabet, Inc. re #17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Osterlund, Anthony) |
| Filing 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Alphabet, Inc.. (Osterlund, Anthony) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE by Defendant Consensys, Inc. of Filing of Motion to Dismiss (Kemp, Matthew) |
| Filing 15 MOTION to Dismiss (Or in the Alternative, Stay) and Compel Arbitration by Defendant Consensys, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Alex Herman, #2 Exhibit 1 - Terms of Use, #3 Exhibit 2 - MetaMask Onboarding Screen) (Kemp, Matthew). Added MOTION to Stay, MOTION to Compel on 5/20/2024 (eh). |
NOTATION ORDER granting #12 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of David Moosmann; granting #13 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Gregory N. Wolfe; granting #14 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Gregory N. Tibor L. Nagy, Jr. as Co-Counsels. Co-Counsels are directed to register for e-filing through PACER unless they have done so previously. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 05/16/2024. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee of $200 paid, receipt number AOHSDC-9973324) of Tibor L. Nagy, Jr. by Defendant Consensys, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing) (Kemp, Matthew) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee of $200 paid, receipt number AOHSDC-9973305) of Gregory N. Wolfe by Defendant Consensys, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing) (Kemp, Matthew) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee of $200 paid, receipt number AOHSDC-9973275) of David Moosmann by Defendant Consensys, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing) (Kemp, Matthew) |
| Filing 11 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Defendant Alphabet, Inc.. (Shadley, Alexander) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint New date requested 5/20/2024. by Defendant Alphabet, Inc.. (Shadley, Alexander) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander Xavier Shadley for Defendant Alphabet, Inc. (Shadley, Alexander) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Anthony L Osterlund for Defendant Alphabet, Inc. (Osterlund, Anthony) |
|
NOTATION ORDER - This matter is before the Court on Defendant Alphabet, Inc.'s Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Answer, Move or Otherwise Plead to Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. #10 ). As with the previous motion for extension of time filed by Defendant Consensys, Inc., the Court notes that this is the Defendant's first requested extension and that Defendant complied with S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.3(a) prior to filing the instant motion in an attempt to obtain Plaintiff's consent to the requested extension. Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds Defendant's motion well taken. Accordingly, Defendant's motion (doc. #10 ) is GRANTED and Defendant Alphabet, Inc. shall have an extension of time through and including 5/20/2024 in which to answer, move or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 4/26/2024. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Defendant Consensys, Inc.. (Kemp, Matthew) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint New date requested 5/16/2024. by Defendant Consensys, Inc.. (Kemp, Matthew) |
|
NOTATION ORDER - This matter is before the Court on Defendant Consensys, Inc.'s Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Answer, Move or Otherwise Plead to Plaintiff's Complaint (doc. #6 ). The Court notes that this is the Defendant's first requested extension and that Defendant complied with S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.3(a) prior to filing the instant motion in an attempt to obtain Plaintiff's consent to the requested extension. Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds Defendant's motion well taken. Accordingly, Defendant's motion (doc. #6 ) is GRANTED and Defendant Consensys, Inc. shall have an extension of time through and including 5/16/2024 in which to answer, move or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 4/22/2024. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Defendant Alphabet, Inc. Alphabet, Inc. served on 4/8/2024, answer due 4/29/2024. (kev) |
| Filing 4 Certificate of Mailing: Certified mailing of summons and complaint through the Clerk's Office pursuant to Local Rule 4.2. (Attachments: #1 Certified Mail Receipt) (bjc) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee: $ 405.00, receipt number 100003703. (kh) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to Alphabet, Inc., Consensys, Inc. (kh) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against Alphabet, Inc., Consensys, Inc., filed by Sarah Lahti. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Filing Fee Receipt) (kh) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
