Rogers v. Action Lab Entertainment et al
Plaintiff: Tom Rogers
Defendant: Action Lab Entertainment and Bryan Seaton
Case Number: 1:2022cv00159
Filed: January 31, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Presiding Judge: Christopher C Conner
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 30, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 30, 2022 Filing 7 VERBAL ORDER It is ORDERED that the motion #6 is GRANTED and defendants may file a brief in support of their anticipated motion to dismiss of no more than 8,000 words. Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 3/30/2022. (Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the order of the court or notice on the matter.) (mw)
March 30, 2022 ADMISSION FORMS SENT to Attorney Stuart Gaul. (lg)
March 30, 2022 DOCKET ANNOTATION: Attorney Gaul notified the Clerk of his general admission February 11, 2022 and this information has been confirmed by the Court's Attorney Admissions Clerk. (lg)
March 29, 2022 Filing 6 Consent MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation by Action Lab Entertainment, Bryan Seaton. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Concurrence, #2 Proposed Order)(Gaul, Stuart)
March 29, 2022 Filing 5 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 7.1 by Action Lab Entertainment. (Gaul, Stuart)
March 29, 2022 Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Stuart C. Gaul, Jr on behalf of All Defendants (Gaul, Stuart)
February 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER re Case Assignment and Procedures. Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 2/1/2022. (mw)
January 31, 2022 Filing 2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants and provided TO ATTORNEY ELECTRONICALLY VIA ECF for service on Defendant(s)in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS RECEIVING THE SUMMONS ELECTRONICALLY: You must print the summons and the attachment when you receive it in your e-mail and serve the complaint on all defendants in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). (gs)
January 31, 2022 Filing 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $402, Receipt Number APAMDC-5832756), filed by Tom Rogers. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(gs)
January 31, 2022 DOCKET ANNOTATION: This case has been assigned to Judge Conner. (ktt)

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rogers v. Action Lab Entertainment et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tom Rogers
Represented By: Micheal S. Katz
Represented By: Michael S. Katz
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Action Lab Entertainment
Represented By: Stuart C. Gaul, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Bryan Seaton
Represented By: Stuart C. Gaul, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?