Palomar Modular Buildings LLC v. Pro-Mark Services Inc et al
| Palomar Modular Buildings LLC |
| Western Surety Company and Pro-Mark Services Inc |
| 3:2020cv01892 |
| July 17, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| A Joe Fish |
| Contract: Miller Act |
| 40 U.S.C. ยง 3131 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC ORDER: In light of the parties' stipulation (docket entry 8), the defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint is hereby extended until September 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 8/3/2020) (chmb)
|
| Filing 8 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT by Palomar Modular Buildings LLC. (Sanderford, Paul) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Western Surety Company ; served on 7/20/2020. (Sanderford, Paul) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Pro-Mark Services Inc ; served on 7/20/2020. (Sanderford, Paul) |
| Filing 5 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Palomar Modular Buildings LLC. (Sanderford, Paul) |
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC ORDER: On July 17, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint in this case but did not provide the clerk with a certificate of interested persons. N.D. TEX. CIV. R. 3.1(c) and 3.2(e) requires that "[w]hen a complaint is filed, the plaintiff must provide the clerk with... a separately signed certificate of interested persons that contains a complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities who or which are financially interested in the outcome of the case. If a large group of persons or firms can be specified by a generic description, individual listing is not necessary." Accordingly, no later than 20 days after this order is filed, the plaintiff must comply with Rule 3.1(c) or 3.2(e) so that the court can ensure that recusal is not required in this case. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 7/20/2020) (chmb)
|
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Pro-Mark Services Inc, Western Surety Company. (mjr) |
| Filing 2 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Rutherford). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (mjr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Pro-Mark Services Inc, Western Surety Company filed by Palomar Modular Buildings LLC. (Filing fee $400; Receipt number 0539-11004392) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific 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. (Sanderford, Paul) |
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.
