PolyVision Corporation v. Fives ST Corporation
Polyvision Corporation |
Fives St Corporation |
6:2022cv00150 |
May 17, 2022 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma |
Jason A Robertson |
Ronald A White |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 24 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: #22 MOTION to Dismiss ) by PolyVision Corporation ;(Hixon, Philip) |
Filing 23 MINUTE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White: In light of the Amended Complaint filed on 6/10/2022, (Re: #19 Amended Complaint) Defendant's #6 Motion to Dismiss is deemed MOOT. (tls, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 22 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Brief in Support by Fives ST Corporation Responses due by 7/8/2022(Buchan, J.) |
Filing 21 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Katie Gant Crane on behalf of Fives ST Corporation (Crane, Katie) |
Filing 20 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by J. Craig Buchan on behalf of Fives ST Corporation (Buchan, J.) |
Filing 19 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Fives ST Corporation (Re: State Court Petition/Complaint) by PolyVision Corporation (Hixon, Philip) Modified on 6/15/2022 to correct party (dma, Deputy Clerk). |
Filing 18 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White granting #17 Joint Motion for Protective Order (tls, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 17 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Fives ST Corporation (With attachments) Responses due by 6/20/2022(Bomhoff, Timothy) |
Filing 16 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Nicole Kathryn Nielly on behalf of PolyVision Corporation (Nielly, Nicole) |
Filing 15 MINUTE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White granting #12 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion. Plaintiff's Response to #6 Partial MOTION to Dismiss due by 6/10/2022 (tls, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 14 ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White inviting Plaintiff, if it so desires, to file an Amended Complaint by 6/10/2022, providing additional legal or factual averments which may vitiate the Defendant's claims of insufficiency. (Re: #6 Partial MOTION to Dismiss) (tls, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 13 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Todd Michael Heffner on behalf of PolyVision Corporation (Heffner, Todd) |
Filing 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion (Re: #6 Partial MOTION to Dismiss ) by PolyVision Corporation Responses due by 6/9/2022(Hixon, Philip) |
Filing 11 MINUTE ORDER by District Judge Ronald A. White granting #8 and #9 Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of attorney Todd Michael Heffner and Nicole Kathryn Nielly for Plaintiff PolyVision Corporation, provided that local counsel is present at all proceedings, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This is conditioned on the filing of an entry of appearance and registration for electronic case filing by the applicant within seven (7) days from entry of this Order. See LCvR 83.4 and CM/ECF Administrative Guide of Policies and Procedures. (tls, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 10 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk: Pursuant to receipt of an election of the District Judge Option and in accordance with LCvR 40.1(c), this case is reassigned to District Judge Ronald A. White. Magistrate Judge Jason A. Robertson no longer assigned to case. All documents filed in this case in the future shall reflect the new case number CIV-22-150-RAW. (pmb, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 9 MOTION for Attorney Nicole Kathryn Nielly to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $50 filing fee; receipt number AOKEDC-1662214) by PolyVision Corporation (With attachments) Responses due by 6/8/2022(Hixon, Philip) |
Filing 8 MOTION for Attorney Todd Michael Heffner to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $50 filing fee; receipt number AOKEDC-1662204) by PolyVision Corporation (With attachments) Responses due by 6/8/2022(Hixon, Philip) |
Filing 7 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (identifying: Corporate Parent IOP PV Holdings for PolyVision Corporation) by PolyVision Corporation (Hixon, Philip) |
Filing 6 Partial MOTION to Dismiss by Fives ST Corporation Responses due by 6/7/2022(Bomhoff, Timothy) |
Filing 5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (identifying: Corporate Parent Fives Inc., Corporate Parent Fives SAS, Corporate Parent Novafives SAS, Corporate Parent Fives Alexandre III SAS, Corporate Parent Fives Orsay SAS for Fives ST Corporation) by Fives ST Corporation (Bomhoff, Timothy) |
FILING FEES Paid in Full on 5/17/2022 in the amount of $402, receipt number AOKEDC-1658758 (Re: #2 Notice of Removal) by Fives ST Corporation (sms, Deputy Clerk) |
Filing 4 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk: Defendant is directed to pay the $402 filing fee within 7 days. Failure to comply with this directive will subject this action to immediate dismissal by the Court without prejudice to refiling. Consent forms provided to filing party. Filing Fee due by 5/24/2022. (jls, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 5/18/2022 to add PDF and edit text (dma, Deputy Clerk). |
Filing 3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Timothy J. Bomhoff on behalf of Fives ST Corporation (Bomhoff, Timothy) |
Filing 2 NOTICE of Removal from Okmulgee County District Court, case number CJ-22-48 by Fives ST Corporation. (jls, Deputy Clerk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/17/2022: #1 Exhibit 1-State Petition, #2 Exhibit 2-Service of Process, #3 Exhibit 3-Summons, #4 Exhibit State Court Docket Sheet) (jls, Deputy Clerk). |
Filing 1 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Fives ST Corporation. (jls, Deputy Clerk) |
PETITION/COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed in State Court against Fives St Corporation by Polyvision Corporation. (jls, Deputy Clerk) |
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 Oklahoma Eastern 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.