FOCHT et al v. SETERUS, INC.
| JAMES C. FOCHT and KAREN FOCHT |
| SETERUS, INC. |
| 3:2018cv00151 |
| July 30, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Johnstown Office |
| Blair |
| Kim R Gibson |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER - Case Management Conference set for 10/25/2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom A - Johnstown before Judge Kim R. Gibson, and as more fully stated in said Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 9/20/2018. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit "A" Stipulation Selecting ADR Process, (2) Exhibit "B" Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) Report, (3) Exhibit "C" Initial Scheduling Order). (krh)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by James R. Cooney on behalf of JAMES C. FOCHT, KAREN FOCHT. (Cooney, James) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert O. Lampl on behalf of JAMES C. FOCHT, KAREN FOCHT. (Lampl, Robert) |
|
Filing 7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part #3 Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is granted with respect to Counts 2 and 7 and denied in all other regards. Count 2 is hereby dismissed with prejudice and Count 7 is hereby dismissed without prejudice, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 9/18/2018. (dlg)
|
| Filing 6 Disclosure Statement identifying Pixel Acquisition Corp. as corporate parent or other affiliate, by SETERUS, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (Phillips, Eric) |
| Filing 5 BRIEF in Opposition re #3 Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Related to Doc. No. 4) filed by JAMES C. FOCHT, KAREN FOCHT. (Lampl, Sy) |
| Filing 4 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to Motion to Dismiss Complaint to #3 Motion to Dismiss, filed by JAMES C. FOCHT, KAREN FOCHT. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Lampl, Sy) |
| CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re #3 Motion to Dismiss. ERROR: Document should have been filed as two separate documents. CORRECTION: Attorney advised in future that documents of that nature are to be filed as separate documents. Clerk of Court docketed Brief in Support. This message is for informational purposes only. (dm) |
| BRIEF in Support re #3 Motion to Dismiss filed by SETERUS, INC. No document attached; filed with #3 . (dm) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss The Complaint by SETERUS, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Certificate of Service, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C, #6 Exhibit D, #7 Exhibit E, #8 Exhibit F) (Phillips, Eric) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE that the instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff (or in the case of a removal action, counsel for removing defendant) shall make service of the notice on all parties. (krh) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Blair County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2018-GN-1972 with Plaintiff Copies attached: Common Pleas Complaint (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $400, receipt number 0315-4811007), filed by SETERUS, INC.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Certificate of Service, #3 Exhibit A - Complaint) (dm) |
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 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.
