Martin et al v. The Nine at Memphis, LLC.
| Darrell Martin and Christopher Oler |
| The Nine at Memphis, LLC. |
| Temiika Gipson |
| 2:2018cv02864 |
| December 19, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee |
| Mark S Norris |
| Diane K Vescovo |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 SETTING LETTER: Scheduling Conference RESET to Thursday, 03/28/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 - Memphis before Judge Mark S. Norris. (zsf) |
| Filing 12 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by The Nine at Memphis, LLC..(Reviere, Russell) |
| Filing 11 SETTING LETTER: Scheduling Conference set for Thursday, 03/07/2019 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 - Memphis before Judge Mark S. Norris. (zsf) |
Filing 10
ORDER granting #7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer The Nine at Memphis, LLC. answer due 1/30/2019. Signed by Judge Mark S. Norris on 1/14/19. (Anderson, Erin)
|
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darrell Martin, Christopher Oler as to All Defendants. (Spicer, Bradford) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED DOCUMENT by The Nine at Memphis, LLC.. Amendment to #1 Notice of Removal, . (Reviere, Russell) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Proposed Order Submitted by The Nine at Memphis, LLC.. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum, #2 Certificate of Consultation)(Walden, Bailey) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Bailey L. Walden on behalf of The Nine at Memphis, LLC. (Walden, Bailey) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.73, and Local Rule 72.1, this Court has designated the Magistrate Judges of this District to conduct trials and otherwise dispose of any civil case that is filed in this Court. Your decision to consent, or not consent, to the referral of your case to a United States Magistrate Judge for trial and entry of a final judgment must be entirely voluntary. The judge or magistrate judge to whom the case has been assigned will not be informed of your decision unless all parties agree that the case may be referred to a magistrate judge for these specific purposes. A less than unanimous decision will not be communicated by this office to either the judge or magistrate judge. The consent form is available on the courts website at https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/forms-and-applications.php (jld) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH PLAN FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): Pursuant to Section to 2.1 of the ADR Plan, all civil cases filed on or after Sept. 1, 2014, shall be referred automatically for ADR. For compliance requirements, refer to the ADR Plan at: http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/ADRPlan.pdf (jld) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Standard track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (jld) |
| Filing 2 Judge Mark S. Norris and Chief Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo added. (jld) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by The Nine at Memphis, LLC. from Circuit Court of Shelby County, case number CT-005505-18 (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number ATNWDC-2950392), filed by The Nine at Memphis, LLC.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Lower Court File)(Reviere, Russell) |
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 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.
