Brantley v. Kaplan et al
Plaintiff: Derrick Brantley
Defendant: Robert S. Kaplan and Eric Rosengren
Case Number: 3:2022cv00541
Filed: July 19, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Presiding Judge: Eli J Richardson
Nature of Suit: Constitutional - State Statute
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Derrick Brantley filed a pro se Complaint in diversity and paid the filing fee. (Doc. Nos. #1 , 1-1.) The Court found that the Complaint did not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of constitutional standing. (Doc. No. #3 .) Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed by filing an Amended Complaint that included supplemental allegations relevant to standing and the injury-in-fact requirement. Id. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond, or request an extension, within thirty days would result in dismissal. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the Courts Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 9/1/2022. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)
July 25, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff must respond by submitting an Amended Complaint that includes, at a minimum, supplemental allegations relevant to standing and the injury-in-fact requirement. The Court must receive the Amended Complaint within 30 DAYS of the date this Order is entered on the docket. Failure to respond or request an extension by the deadline may result in dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 7/25/2022. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(kc)
July 19, 2022 Filing 2 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (mg)
July 19, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Robert S. Kaplan and Eric Rosengren (Filing fee $402, Receipt number 34675066522), filed by Derrick Brantley. (Attachments: #1 Attachment - Receipt)(mg)
July 19, 2022 Notice mailed to pro se party regarding filing of new case (docket sheet & certificate of service form and Notice of Consent form included.) (mg)

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

Search for this case: Brantley v. Kaplan 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: Derrick Brantley
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: Robert S. Kaplan
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: Eric Rosengren
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?