HOLLEY v. KOONS et al
| RAYMOND HOLLEY |
| MICHAEL KOONS and JOHN DOE/JANE DOE/ABC CORP. |
| 2:2024cv01079 |
| March 13, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| CHAD F KENNEY |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDERED THAT THE REMOVING DEFENDANT SHALL, ON ECF, ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD TO THE COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE APRIL 12, 2024. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE CHAD F. KENNEY ON 3/13/2024. 3/13/2024 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg)
|
|
Filing 2
ORDERED THAT COUNSEL CONTEMPLATING FILING A MOTION UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6), (E), OR (F), SHALL FIRST CONTACT OPPOSING COUNSEL TO DISCUSS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTEMPLATED MOTION AND TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE ANY ALLEGED PLEADING DEFICIENCIES OR STRIKE CERTAIN MATTER. THIS CONFERENCE SHALL TAKE PLACE AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE MOTION. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE CHAD F. KENNEY ON 3/13/2024. 3/13/2024 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg)
|
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by MICHAEL KOONS (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number APAEDC-17325612), filed by MICHAEL KOONS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Designation Form, #4 Supplement Case Management Track Designation Form)(Mullen, Brendan) |
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.
