Perez-Cuesta v. Rasier, LLC et al
Jaynid Perez-Cuesta |
Rasier, LLC, Jenee Campbell and Uber Technologies, Inc. |
1:2020cv00172 |
April 15, 2020 |
US District Court for the District of Rhode Island |
John J McConnell |
Patricia A Sullivan |
Motor Vehicle |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand #5 is GRANTED. Defendant's Notice of Removal was improper and was directed toward the original Complaint even though Plaintiff had filed an Amended Complaint as a matter of right. Because no Defendant had been served with the Amended Complaint, the Notice of Removal was improper. This matter is appropriately litigated in state court under the forum defendant rule. 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b)(2) -So Ordered by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 5/11/2020. (Barletta, Barbara) |
Filing 9 RESPONSE In Opposition to #5 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Rasier, LLC. Replies due by 5/13/2020. (Nimock, Mario) |
Filing 8 STATE COURT RECORD received electronically from the State of Rhode Island. (Hicks, Alyson) |
TEXT ORDER entering #7 Stipulation filed by Rasier, LLC, #6 Stipulation filed by Rasier, LLC to extend time for Rasier, LLC to respond until it is served the Amended Complaint - So Ordered by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 4/23/2020. (Barletta, Barbara) |
Filing 7 STIPULATION Extending Rasier, LLC's Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Rasier, LLC. (Nimock, Mario) |
Filing 6 STIPULATION extending Rasier, LLC's time to respond to plaintiff's amended complaint filed by Rasier, LLC. (Nimock, Mario) |
Filing 5 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Jaynid Perez-Cuesta. Responses due by 5/6/2020. (Attachments: #1 Supporting Memorandum Pltf's Memo in Support of M-Remand, #2 Exhibit Exhibit A - Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, #3 Exhibit Exhibit B - Plaintiff's Original Complaint, #4 Exhibit Exhibit C - Summons and Proof of Service)(Dolan, Mark) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew R. Ferguson on behalf of Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. (Ferguson, Andrew) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew R. Ferguson on behalf of Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. (Ferguson, Andrew) |
Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Mario D. Nimock on behalf of Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. (Nimock, Mario) |
Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Mario D. Nimock on behalf of Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. (Nimock, Mario) |
Filing 2 CASE OPENING NOTICE ISSUED (Hicks, Alyson) |
Filing 2 CASE OPENING NOTICE ISSUED (Hicks, Alyson) |
Filing 1 NEW CASE/NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Providence County Superior Court, Case Number PC-2020-02669. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0103-1492297, filed by Rasier, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Rasier Served Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Nimock, Mario) (Attachment 2 replaced with flattened version on 4/15/2020) (Hicks, Alyson). |
Filing 1 NEW CASE/NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Providence County Superior Court, Case Number PC-2020-02669. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0103-1492297, filed by Rasier, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Rasier Served Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Nimock, Mario) (Attachment 2 replaced with flattened version on 4/15/2020) (Hicks, Alyson). |
Case assigned to Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan. (Hicks, Alyson) |
Case assigned to Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan. (Hicks, Alyson) |
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 Rhode Island 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.