Niemitalo Inc v. Greenville County et al
| Niemitalo Inc |
| Greenville County Council, Greenville County Planning Commission and Greenville County |
| 6:2020cv01432 |
| April 15, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Henry M Herlong |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 OPINION & ORDER granting #6 Motion to Remand to State Court. Plaintiff's federal law claims are dismissed with prejudice.Clerk's Notice: Attorneys are responsible for supplementing the State Record with all documents filed in Federal Court. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 5/27/2020.(abuc) |
| Filing 13 REPLY to Response to Motion re #6 MOTION to Remand to State Court Response filed by Niemitalo Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit March 12, 2020 Hearing Transcript)(Holder, Murray) |
| Filing 12 Defendants' Amended Answer ANSWER to #5 Amended Complaint, by Greenville County, Greenville County Council, Greenville County Planning Commission.(Antley, Christopher) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Murray Stokely Holder on behalf of Niemitalo Inc (Holder, Murray) (Main Document 10 replaced with corrected document provided by filing user on 5/22/2020) (abuc). |
| Filing 9 OBJECTIONS by Greenville County, Greenville County Council, Greenville County Planning Commission. (Antley, Christopher) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE in Opposition re #6 MOTION to Remand to State Court Response filed by Greenville County, Greenville County Council, Greenville County Planning Commission.Reply to Response to Motion due by 5/21/2020 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Plaintiff's Original Summons and Complaint)(Antley, Christopher) Modified to add description to exhibit provided by filing user on 5/15/2020 (abuc). |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to #5 Amended Complaint, by Greenville County, Greenville County Council, Greenville County Planning Commission.(Antley, Christopher) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Niemitalo Inc. Response to Motion due by 5/14/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, #2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Memo in Support of Motion to Remand, Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate, #3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Memo in Support of Motion to Remand, Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder)No proposed order.(Holder, Murray) |
| Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Niemitalo Inc. Service due by 7/28/2020 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A -Greenville County Letter Dated July 2, 2018) (Holder, Murray) Modified to add description to exhibit provided by filing user on 4/30/2020 (abuc). |
| Filing 4 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Niemitalo Inc.(Holder, Murray) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Greenville County, Greenville County Council, Greenville County Planning Commission.(abuc) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2020-CP-23-01993. (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0420-9052236), filed by Greenville County Planning Commission, Greenville County Council, Greenville County. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - State Court Documents, #2 Exhibit B - State Court Notice of Removal)(abuc) |
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.
