Brady v. Myrtle Beach, City of et al
| James Brady |
| Myrtle Beach, City of, State of South Carolina, Metro Properties Group LLC, David Sebok and Myrtle Beach Downtown Redevelopment Corporation |
| 4:2019cv00107 |
| January 14, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Donald C Coggins |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr. Judge Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell no longer assigned to the case. (cwil, ) |
| Filing 14 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Myrtle Beach, City of.(Battle, Michael) |
| Filing 13 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by James Brady.(Brittain, Thomas) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Request for Protection from Court Appearance by Thomas C Brittain for 3/7/19-3/25/19, 6/6/19-6/7/19 (Brittain, Thomas) |
| Filing 11 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Myrtle Beach Downtown Redevelopment Corporation.(MacDonald, Susan) |
| Filing 10 ANSWER to Complaint Amended Complaint by Myrtle Beach Downtown Redevelopment Corporation.(MacDonald, Susan) |
| Filing 9 Defendant David Sebok's Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by David Sebok.(MacDonald, Susan) |
| Filing 8 Defendant David Sebok's ANSWER to Complaint Amended Complaint by David Sebok.(MacDonald, Susan) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Susan P MacDonald on behalf of Myrtle Beach Downtown Redevelopment Corporation, David Sebok (MacDonald, Susan) (Main Document 7 replaced on 2/11/2019 to replace with corrected document provided by filing user) (lsut, ). |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Marvin Connor on behalf of Myrtle Beach Downtown Redevelopment Corporation, David Sebok (Connor, Andrew) |
| Filing 5 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by James Brady.(Brittain, Thomas) |
| Filing 4 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 2/4/2019, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 2/19/2019, Rule 26 Report due by 2/19/2019, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 4/15/2019, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 5/15/2019, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 6/14/2019, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 6/14/2019, Discovery due by 8/13/2019, Motions due by 8/28/2019, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 11/12/2019, ADR Statement due by 9/28/2019, Mediation Due by 10/28/2019.Motions in limine must be filed at least three weeks prior to date set for jury selection.. Responses to motions in limine shall be filed within seven (7) days fter the motion is filed. Parties shall furnish the Court pretrial briefs seven (7) days prior to the date set for jury selection. This case is subject to being called for jury selection and/or trial on or after 01/06/2020. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 1/15/2019. (lsut, ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Myrtle Beach, City of. (lsut, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Horry County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2017-CP-26-00685 (filing fee $400 receipt number 0420-8208236), filed by Myrtle Beach, City of. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents - Amended Complaint, #2 State Court Documents - Answer to Amended Complaint, #3 State Court Documents - Notice of Removal to Federal Court, #4 Certificate of Service) (lsut, ) |
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 South Carolina 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.
