Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bitqyck Inc et al
Securities and Exchange Commission |
Samuel J Mendez, Bitqyck Inc and Bruce E Bise |
3:2019cv02059 |
August 29, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
David C Godbey |
Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities/Exchange |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT BRUCE E. BISE (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 8/30/2019) (ykp) |
Filing 11 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED #5 MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BRUCE E. BISE. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 8/30/2019) (ykp) |
Filing 10 FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT BITQYCK, INC. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 8/30/2019) (ykp) |
Filing 9 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED #4 MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BITQYCK, INC. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 8/30/2019) (ykp) |
Filing 8 FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT SAMUEL J. MENDEZ. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 8/30/2019) (ykp) |
Filing 7 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED #3 MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT SAMUEL J. MENDEZ. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 8/30/2019) (ykp) |
Filing 6 New Case Notes: A filing fee is not due for this case. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ramirez). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (sre) |
Filing 5 Unopposed MOTION for Final Judgment Against Defendant Bruce E. Bise filed by Securities and Exchange Commission (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A: Consent of Defendant Bise, #2 Proposed Final Judgment As To Defendant Bise, #3 Proposed Order on MTE Judgment) (Bernstein, Keefe) Modified on 8/29/2019 (sre). |
Filing 4 Unopposed MOTION for Final Judgment Against Defendant BITQYCK, Inc. filed by Securities and Exchange Commission (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A: Consent of BITQYCK, Inc., #2 Proposed Final Judgment for Defendant BITQYCK, Inc., #3 Proposed Order on MTE Judgment) (Bernstein, Keefe) Modified on 8/29/2019 (sre). Modified on 8/29/2019 (sre). |
Filing 3 Unopposed MOTION for Final Judgment Against Defendant Samuel J. Mendez filed by Securities and Exchange Commission (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A: Consent of Samuel J. Mendez, #2 Proposed Final Judgment, #3 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Enter Final Judgment Against Samuel J. Mendez) (Bernstein, Keefe) |
Filing 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Bernstein, Keefe) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Securities and Exchange Commission. (Filer fee note- Filed by the USA) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet) (Bernstein, Keefe) |
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 Texas Northern 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.