PURCELL et al v. HENNIG et al
| CHRIS PURCELL and KIMBERLY GROOME |
| HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C., ROB HENNIG and HENNIG RUIZ P.C. |
| 2:2022cv00469 |
| February 4, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| MARK A KEARNEY |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT against ROB HENNIG, HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C., filed by CHRIS PURCELL, KIMBERLY GROOME.(SHAH, JAMES) |
Filing 9
ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR REASSIGN IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 3/30/2022. 3/30/2022 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg)
|
| Filing 8 MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 3/30/2022. 3/30/2022 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE in Opposition re #6 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND OTHER RELIEF and Notice of Intent to File Amended Complaint filed by KIMBERLY GROOME, CHRIS PURCELL. (SHAH, JAMES) |
| Filing 6 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND OTHER RELIEF filed by ROB HENNIG, HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C..Memorandum and Declaration. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Declaration of Robert A. Magnanini, Esq. with Exhibits)(MAGNANINI, ROBERT) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERING THE PARTIES STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF DOC. NO. 4) DEMONSTRATING LIMITED GOOD CAUSE TO EXTEND THE RESPONSE TIME PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL RULES BUT FINDING NO PREJUDICE IN A SHORT EXTENSION GIVEN THE PLAINTIFFS CONSENT, IT IS ORDERED THE STIPULATION (ECF DOC. NO. 4) IS APPROVED IN PART AND DEFENDANTS: 1. ARE GRANTED LEAVE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT (ECF DOC. NO. 1) NO LATER THAN MARCH 14, 2022; AND, 2. SHALL ENGAGE IN A MEANINGFUL AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DIALOGUE WITH PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL INCLUDING THE EXCHANGE OF FED.R.EVID. 408 COMMUNICATIONS AND SEPARATELY EMAIL A LETTER TO CHAMBERS NO LATER THAN MARCH 14, 2022 DESCRIBING THE STATUS (WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF MONETARY POSITIONS) OF THE PARTIES SETTLEMENT EFFORTS.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 3/2/2022. 3/2/2022 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg)
|
| Filing 4 STIPULATION re #1 Complaint (Attorney), Extending Time for Defendants to Answer or Otherwise Plead by ROB HENNIG, HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C.. (MAGNANINI, ROBERT) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by ROBERT A. MAGNANINI on behalf of ROB HENNIG, HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C. (MAGNANINI, ROBERT) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by CHRIS PURCELL, KIMBERLY GROOME re: Mark Manchester served Summons and Complaint upon ROB HENNIG, HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C. by Substituted. ROB HENNIG served on 2/8/2022, answer due 3/1/2022; HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C. served on 2/8/2022, answer due 3/1/2022. (SHAH, JAMES) |
| Summons Issued as to ROB HENNIG, HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C.. Forwarded To: EMAILED TO PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL on 2/7/2022 (sg, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT against ROB HENNIG, HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number APAEDC-15708176.), filed by CHRIS PURCELL, KIMBERLY GROOME. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Designation Form)(SHAH, JAMES) |
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 Pennsylvania 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.
