Agrawal et al v. Oklahoma City City of et al
| Kris K Agrawal, Nationwide Engineering and Testing and Vance-I Properties LLC |
| Oklahoma City City of and KFOR Television |
| 5:2023cv00410 |
| May 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma |
| Scott L Palk |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 MOTION titled, "Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgement Against City of Oklahoma City" by Kris K Agrawal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1- Affidavit of Kris K. Agrawal, #2 Attachment 1- Memo from The City of Oklahoma City, #3 Envelope)(dtb) |
| Filing 14 REPLY by Plaintiff Kris K Agrawal titled, " Sur Reply of Plaintiff's against Defendant City's Response to Plaintiff's "Complaint [...] Against Attorney Oklahoma City" (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1- Email Correspondence, #2 Envelope)(dtb) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE to #11 Reply filed by Kris K Agrawal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1- Screenshots from KFOR Webpage, #2 Exhibit 2- KFOR article, #3 Exhibit 3- Correspondence from The City of Oklahoma City Fire Department, #4 Exhibit 4- Letter, #5 Exhibit 5- Instructions on how to amend your complaint from the Eastern District of New York, #6 Envelope)(dtb) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE re #9 Complaint of Plaintiff Kris K. Agrawal Against Attorneys of Oklahoma City filed by Oklahoma City City of. (Goff, Mary) |
| Filing 11 REPLY by Defendant KFOR Television re #7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by KFOR Television. (Epstein, Jon) |
| Filing 10 RESPONSE to #4 MOTION to Dismiss titled, "Answer Of Plaintiff Against Motion To Dismiss Filed By Defendant City Of Oklahoma City" filed by Kris K Agrawal. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(dtb) |
| Filing 9 COMPLAINT Of Plaintiff Kris. K Agrawl Against Attorneys Of Oklahoma City Filed By Kris K Agrawal. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(dtb) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE to Motion re #7 MOTION to Dismiss titled, "Answer Of Plaintiff Kris. Agrawal To Motion To Dismiss Filed By Defendant Nexstar Media Group Inc." filed by Kris K Agrawal. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(dtb) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss by KFOR Television. (Nelon, Robert) |
| Filing 6 ENTRY of Appearance by Jon Epstein on behalf of KFOR Television (Epstein, Jon) |
| Filing 5 ENTRY of Appearance by Robert D Nelon on behalf of KFOR Television (Nelon, Robert) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss of Defendant City and Brief in Support by Oklahoma City City of. (Goff, Mary) |
| Filing 3 ENTRY of Appearance by Mary K Goff on behalf of Oklahoma City City of (Goff, Mary) |
| Filing 2 ENTRY of Appearance by Benjamin G Rose on behalf of Oklahoma City City of (Rose, Benjamin) |
| PAYMENT FOR A CIVIL CASE Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AOKWDC-4157204. (Katz, Sherri) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from The District Court of Oklahoma County, case number CJ-2022-5910 filed by Oklahoma City City of. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1- Petition, #2 Exhibit 2- Amended Petition, #3 Exhibit 3- Summons with Amended Petition to City Of OKC, #4 Exhibit 4- Summons with Amended Petition to KFOR Television, #5 Exhibit 5- Summons Returned Served City on 4/10/23, #6 Exhibit 6- Summons Returned on 4/11/23 Signed by Amy Cowns, #7 Exhibit 7- Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Nexstar Media Group Inc- KFOR, #8 Exhibit 8- Docket Sheet, #9 Civil Cover Sheet)(dtb) |
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 Western 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.
