EHO360 LLC v. Opalich et al
| EHO360, LLC and EHO360 LLC |
| HealthView Capital Partners, LLC, Crevice Capital Partners, LLC, HospisRX, LLC, Tammy Radcliff, Nicholas Opalich, HospisRX LLC, Crevice Capital Partners LLC and HealthView Capital Partners LLC |
| ADR Provider |
| 3:2021cv00724 |
| March 29, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Jane J Boyle |
| Jane J Boyle |
| Contract: Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 69
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #60 Plaintiff EHO360, LLC's Motion to Compel and Request for Discovery Sanctions against Defendants Nicholas Opalich and Tammy Radcliff."EHO respectfully requests that the Court enter an order: (1) compelling Opalich and Radcliff to produce highly relevant documents that they have improperly withheld and refused to produce in response to EHO's requests for production; and (2) award EHO the reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees it has incurred, and will incur in the future, in making this Motion." Dkt. No. 60 at 1. More specifically, EHO requests that the Court enter an order compelling Opalich to: (1) produce all documents and communications responsive to EHO's Request for Production Nos. 1-8 and 14, including, but not limited to, all documents and communications related to the NewCo Hospice PBM Opportunity, any other PBM business opportunity, any prescription claims processing business opportunity, any EHO Documents, any EHO Client, any Potential EHO Client, and HospisRX; and (2) certify that all such documents and communications have been produced; and enter an order compelling Radcliff to: (1) produce all documents and communications responsive to EHO's Request for Production Nos. 1-5 and 8, including, but not limited to, all documents and communications related to the NewCo Hospice PBM Opportunity, any other PBM business opportunity, any prescription claims processing business opportunity, any EHO Documents, any EHO Client, any Potential EHO Client, and HospisRX; and (2) certify that all such documents and communications have been produced. Dkt. No. 60 at 7-8.As a preliminary matter, contrary to Defendants' arguments regarding the governing standards on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) motion to compel, "the Court does not believe that, under [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 26(b) and 26(g) and Fifth Circuit law, the burden to demonstrate why requested discovery should not be permitted shifts to a responding party only if and when the discovery's proponent first meets a threshold burden to prove that it is asking for documents within the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). That is, the Court disagrees with statements in other district court decisions that, as part of a burden-shifting test, an initial burden lies with the party moving to compel to show clearly that (as Rule 26(b)(1) now provides) the information sought is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. See, e.g., Spiegelberg Mfg., Inc. v. Hancock, No. 3:07-cv-1314-G, 2007 WL 4258246, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2007); Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight, 241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006); see also Ashton v. Knight Transp., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-759-B, 2009 WL 4580801, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2009) ('To place the burden of proving that the evidence sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the opponent of discovery is to ask that party to prove a negative. This is an unfair burden, as it would require a party to refute all possible alternative uses of the evidence, possibly including some never imagined by the proponent.' (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Staton Holdings, Inc. v. Russell Athletic, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-419-D, 2010 WL 1372479 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2010)." Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Chung, 325 F.R.D. 578, 595 (N.D. Tex. 2017).Defendants resist EHO's discovery requests in part based on the Court's denial of a preliminary injunction motion after stating there was no evidence that: (i) EHO had lost customers to HospisRx; (ii) Opalich or Radcliff are currently using or in possession of Plaintiff's confidential information; and (iii) Opalich is using any confidential information he may have. Although Defendants assert that "[t]his Court has already cast doubt on Plaintiffs claims and the harm it has allegedly suffered," Dkt. No. 63 at 5-6, the Court's preliminary injunction ruling "did not amount to a ruling on the merits," Jonibach Mgmt. Tr. v. Wartburg Enterprises, Inc., 750 F.3d 486, 491 (5th Cir. 2014). And there may often be a difference between requests that exceed the scope of permissible discovery for claims that have been pleaded and requests that exceed the scope of permissible discovery for claims that have been proven. EHO is not required to prove the allegations in support of its claims in order to obtain discovery relevant to those claims. Accordingly, "the Court will not engage in a preemptive merits analysis to determine whether [EHO] is entitled to discovery on the claim that it has pleaded and is pursuing." Firebirds Intl, LLC v. Firebird Rest. Grp., LLC, No. 3:17-CV-2719-B, 2018 WL 3655574, at *16 (N.D. Tex. July 16, 2018). Neither can a party refuse to engage in -- nor should it be excused from being subjected to -- discovery because the discovery is relevant to a claim on which the resisting party believes that he will or should prevail. See Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 489 (N.D. Tex. 2014). The Court is not persuaded that Defendants have met their burden to show the discovery requests seek information that is not relevant to a claim or defense in this case or proportional to the needs of the case because Defendant deny EHOs allegations and because, in Defendants' view, the documents that they have produced "make it abundantly clear that Plaintiff has never had, nor will Plaintiff ever establish, a good-faith claim against the Defendants." Dkt. No. 63 at 6.Even if EHO's discovery requests do require production of documents including trade secrets, the Court entered a Protective Order of Confidentiality in this case, which permits Defendants to shield any confidential or trade secret information from disclosure by designating it "CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY INFORMATION." See Dkt. No. 36. Although Defendants point to "the harm to Defendants and HospisRx if such information and documents become public knowledge," Dkt. No. 63 at 18, without more than this speculative concern, the Court finds, as it has in similar instances, that the confidentiality-based protective order that has been entered provides sufficient protections, such that Defendants cannot refuse to produce documents or information on the basis that they may contain confidential or trade secret information. See, e.g., TNA Australia Pty Ltd. v. PPM Technologies, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-642-M, 2018 WL 2010277, at * 15 (N.D. Tex. April 30, 2018).Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion as to EHO's Request for Production Nos. 1-8 and 14 to Defendant Nicholas Opalich and orders Defendant Nicholas Opalich to, by June 28, 2022, serve complete responses (without objections) to Request for Production Nos. 1-8 and 14 and produce all unproduced documents and electronically stored information that are responsive to Request for Production Nos. 1-8 and 14 and that are in Defendant Nicholas Opalich's possession, custody, or control, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)'s requirements. And the Court GRANTS the motion as to EHO's Request for Production Nos. 1-5 and 8 to Defendant Tammy Radcliff and orders Defendant Tammy Radcliff to, by June 28, 2022, serve complete responses (without objections) to Request for Production Nos. 1-5 and 8 and produce all unproduced documents and electronically stored information that are responsive to Request for Production Nos. 1-5 and 8 and that are in Defendant Tammy Radcliff's possession, custody, or control, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)'s requirements. And, after carefully considering the parties' positions, the Court finds that Defendants Nicholas Opalich's and Tammy Radcliff's objections to the requests at issue were not substantially justified for the reasons explained above; that Plaintiff EHO360, LLC filed its motion to compel only attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action; that no other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust; and that Defendants Nicholas Opalich and Tammy Radcliff must be required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) to, jointly and severally, reimburse Plaintiff EHO360, LLC for its attorneys' fees that Plaintiff EHO360, LLC incurred in having its attorneys draft the motion to compel #60 and reply in support #66 . And the Court determines that a hearing is not needed where the "opportunity to be heard" that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) requires may be provided "'either on written submissions or in an oral hearing,'" T-M Vacuum Prod., Inc. v. Taisc, Inc., No. CIV.A. H-07-4108, 2008 WL 5082413, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2008) (quoting Rose v. First Colony Community Servs. Ass'n, Inc., 199 F.3d 440, 1999 WL 1068252, at *1 (5th Cir. 1999) ("An oral hearing is not required.")), and this Rule 37(a)(5) fee-shifting issue was sufficiently raised by EHO's motion and addressed by Defendants' response to satisfy this requirement.Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants' counsel are directed to confer by telephone or videoconference or in person about the reasonable amount of these attorneys' fees to be awarded under Rule 37(a)(5), as specified above. By no later than July 5, 2022, the parties must file a joint report notifying the Court of the results of the conference. If all disputed issues as to the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to Plaintiff EHO360, LLC have been resolved, Plaintiff EHO360, LLC's counsel must also send an agreed proposed order to the Court at Horan_Orders@txnd.uscourts.gov by July 5, 2022. If the parties do not reach an agreement as to the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded, Plaintiff EHO360, LLC must, by no later than July 12, 2022, file an application for attorneys' fees that is accompanied by supporting evidence establishing the amount of the reasonable attorneys' fees (as described above) to be awarded under Rules 37(a)(5). The fee application must be supported by documentation evidencing the "lodestar" calculation, including affidavits and detailed billing records, and citations to relevant authorities and must set forth the itemized number of hours expended in connection with the recoverable attorneys' fees described above as well as the reasonable rate(s) requested. See Tollett v. City of K
|
|
Filing 68
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #67 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Timothy J. Lowe. If not already done, Applicant must register as an ECF user. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 5/26/2022) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 67
Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Certificate of Good Standing (Filing fee $100; Receipt number 0539-12851888) filed by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff. Attorney Timothy J Lowe added to party Nicholas Opalich(pty:dft), Tammy Radcliff(pty:cc) (Lowe, Timothy) Modified filers and text on 5/27/2022 (ykp).
|
|
Filing 66
REPLY filed by EHO360 LLC re: #60 MOTION to Compel (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Exhibit(s)) (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 65
NOTICE of Agreed Second Extension of Expert Deadlines and Discovery Cutoff filed by EHO360 LLC (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 64
Appendix in Support filed by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re #63 Response/Objection and Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Request for Discovery Sanctions (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 63
RESPONSE filed by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re: #60 MOTION to Compel (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 62
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: #47 Motion to Dismiss Defendant Tammy Radcliff's Counterclaim filed by EHO360 LLC, and #51 Motion to Dismiss Nicholas Opalich's Amended Counterclaim for Fraudulent Inducement filed by EHO360 LLC are Granted. Radcliffs Counterclaim and Opalich's Fraudulent- Inducement Counterclaim are each DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court GRANTS LEAVE for each Defendant to file an amended counterclaim WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS of this Order to the extent that they can remedy the pleading defects identified herein. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 4/21/2022) (svc)
|
|
Filing 61
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: #60 MOTION to Compel and Request for Discovery Sanctions is Referred to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 4/18/2022) (svc)
|
|
Filing 60
MOTION to Compel filed by EHO360 LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A, #2 Exhibit(s) B, #3 Exhibit(s) C, #4 Exhibit(s) D, #5 Exhibit(s) E, #6 Exhibit(s) F) (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 59
Agreed NOTICE of the Extension of Expert Designation Deadlines filed by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff. (Whiting, Simon) Modified text on 3/28/2022 (mjr).
|
|
Filing 58
NOTICE of Dismissal of Counter-Claims re: #44 Answer to Amended Complaint,,, Counterclaim,, #46 Answer to Amended Complaint,,, Counterclaim,, filed by Nicholas Opalich (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 57
REPLY filed by EHO360 LLC re: #51 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Nicholas Opalich's Amended Counterclaim (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 56
MEDIATION ORDER. The court appoints Christopher Marc Nolland as mediator. #Alternative Dispute Resolution Summary form provided electronically or by US Mail as appropriate. Deadline for mediation is on or before 8/26/2022. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 10/19/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 55
Joint Designation of Mediator by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff. (Whiting, Simon) Modified text on 10/19/2021 (mjr).
|
|
Filing 54
REPLY filed by EHO360 LLC re: #47 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 53
RESPONSE filed by Nicholas Opalich re: #51 MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Nicholas Opalich's Amended Counterclaim (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 52
RESPONSE filed by Tammy Radcliff re: #47 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaim (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 51
MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Nicholas Opalich's Amended Counterclaim filed by EHO360 LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 50
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 1/23/2023 before Judge Jane J. Boyle. Joinder of Parties due by 1/14/2022. Amended Pleadings due by 1/14/2022. Motions due by 9/23/2022. Discovery due by 8/19/2022. Deadline for mediation is on or before 8/26/2022. Pretrial Order due by 1/9/2023. Pretrial Materials due by 1/9/2023. Pretrial Conference set for 1/20/2023 10:00 AM before Judge Jane J. Boyle. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 9/14/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 49
SCHEDULING ORDER: This case is set for trial beginning 1/23/2023 before Judge Jane J. Boyle. Joinder of Parties due by 1/14/2022. Amended Pleadings due by 1/14/2022. Motions due by 9/23/2022. Discovery due by 8/19/2022. Deadline for mediation is on or before 8/26/2022. Pretrial Order due by 1/9/2023. Pretrial Materials due by 1/9/2023. Pretrial Conference set for 1/20/2023 10:00 AM before Judge Jane J. Boyle. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 9/13/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 48
Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff. (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 47
Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim filed by EHO360 LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s), #2 Proposed Order) (Wohlford, Lucas) Modified text on 9/10/2021 (jmg).
|
|
Filing 46
Original ANSWER to #5 Amended Complaint filed by Nicholas Opalich. 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., Amended COUNTERCLAIM against All Plaintiffs filed by Nicholas Opalich (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 45
STATUS REPORT ORDER: Status Report due by 9/10/2021. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 8/20/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 44
Defendant's Original ANSWER to #42 Amended Complaint,, filed by Nicholas Opalich. 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., COUNTERCLAIM against EHO360 LLC filed by Nicholas Opalich (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 43
Defendant's Original ANSWER to #42 Amended Complaint,, filed by Tammy Radcliff. 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., COUNTERCLAIM against EHO360 LLC filed by Tammy Radcliff (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 42
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff filed by EHO360 LLC. (One or more defendant(s) is no longer named.) 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 Exhibit(s)) (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 41
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTED #15 motion to dismiss insofar as it sought dismissal of the claim against the Entity Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court thus DISMISSES the tortious-interference claim against the Entity Defendants WITHOUT PREJUDICE and directs the Clerk to terminate Crevice, HealthView, and HospisRX as parties in this case. HospisRX LLC, Crevice Capital Partners LLC and HealthView Capital Partners LLC terminated. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 7/27/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 40
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. #15 ). The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff one opportunity to amend its complaint to remedy the deficiencies noted in this Order. Plaintiff must file its amended complaint within FOURTEEN (14) days of this Order. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 7/23/2021) (ygl)
|
|
Filing 39
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying #13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 7/20/2021) (ygl)
|
|
Filing 38
(Document Restricted) Sealed Court's Exhibit List from Motion hearing and Preliminary Injunction hearing held 7/16/2021. (chmb)
|
|
Filing 37
ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jane J. Boyle: Motion Hearing held on 7/16/2021 re #13 Motion for Injunction and #15 Motion to Dismiss. Order to follow. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - Lucas C Wohlford and Corey M Weideman; Defense - Simon D Whiting; Molly Jones; Timothy J Lowe. (Court Reporter: Shawnie Archuleta) (Exhibits admitted) Time in Court - 1:58. (chmb)
|
|
Filing 36
PROTECTIVE ORDER OF CONFIDENTIALITY (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 7/15/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 35
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #34 Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 7/15/2021) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 34
MOTION for Protective Order of Confidentiality filed by EHO360 LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A - Protective Order of Confidentiality) (Weideman, Corey)
|
|
Filing 33
ORDER Denying Without Prejudice #26 Motion to Expedite Discovery filed by EHO360 LLC. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 6/25/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 32
REPLY filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re: #15 MOTION to Dismiss (Nadler, Noah)
|
|
Filing 31
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court ORDERS that pursuant to Northern District of Texas Local Rule 7.1(f), it will not consider any reply brief in conjunction with #26 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Expedited Discovery. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 6/21/2021) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 30
RESPONSE filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re: #26 MOTION to Expedite Discovery (Nadler, Noah)
|
|
Filing 29
RESPONSE filed by EHO360 LLC re: #15 MOTION to Dismiss (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 28
NOTICE of Vacation filed by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 27
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court ORDERS Defendants to file any response to #26 Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Expedited Discovery on or before Monday, June 21, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 6/17/2021) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 26
MOTION to Expedite Discovery filed by EHO360 LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A, #2 Exhibit(s) B, #3 Exhibit(s) C, #4 Exhibit(s) D, #5 Exhibit(s) E, #6 Proposed Order) (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 25
REPLY filed by EHO360 LLC re: #13 MOTION for Injunction and Supporting Brief (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 24
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #23 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Timothy J. Lowe. If not already done, Applicant must register as an ECF User within 14 days of this Order (L.R. 5.1(f)). (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 6/14/2021) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 23
Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Certificate of Good Standing (Filing fee $100; Receipt number 0539-11967731) filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC Attorney Timothy J Lowe added to party Crevice Capital Partners LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy J Lowe added to party HealthView Capital Partners LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Timothy J Lowe added to party HospisRX LLC(pty:dft) (Lowe, Timothy)
|
|
Filing 22
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING: Responses due by 6/18/2021. Replies due by 6/23/2021 re: #15 MOTION to Dismiss . Motion Hearing set for 7/16/2021 10:00 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1516, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge Jane J. Boyle. Plaintiff must file any reply in support of its #13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before 6/16/21. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 6/11/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 21
Appendix in Support filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re #20 Response/Objection (Nadler, Noah)
|
|
Filing 20
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re: #13 MOTION for Injunction and Supporting Brief (Nadler, Noah)
|
|
Filing 19
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC. (Nadler, Noah)
|
|
Filing 18
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff. (Whiting, Simon)
|
|
Filing 17
Appendix in Support filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re #16 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 1-10) (Nadler, Noah) Modified docket text and linkage on 6/1/2021 (oyh).
|
|
Filing 16
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff re #15 MOTION to Dismiss (Nadler, Noah)
|
|
Filing 15
MOTION to Dismiss filed by Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff Attorney Noah Nadler added to party Crevice Capital Partners LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Noah Nadler added to party HealthView Capital Partners LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Noah Nadler added to party HospisRX LLC(pty:dft), Attorney Noah Nadler added to party Nicholas Opalich(pty:dft), Attorney Noah Nadler added to party Tammy Radcliff(pty:dft) (Nadler, Noah)
|
|
Filing 14
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court ORDERS Defendants to file any response to the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 13) on or before June 9, 2021. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 5/20/2021) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION for Injunction filed by EHO360 LLC with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Declaration(s) Appendix in Support, #2 Proposed Order) (Wohlford, Lucas) Modified text on 5/20/2021 (mjr).
|
|
Filing 12
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by EHO360 LLC. (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 11
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to HospisRX LLC. Waiver sent on 4/9/2021. (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 10
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to HealthView Capital Partners LLC. Waiver sent on 4/9/2021. (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 9
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Crevice Capital Partners LLC. Waiver sent on 4/9/2021. (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 8
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Nicholas Opalich. Waiver sent on 4/9/2021. (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court discharges its #4 Order to Show Cause in light of #5 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and #6 Plaintiff's Response. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 4/1/2021) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 6
RESPONSE filed by EHO360 LLC re: #4 Order to Show Cause/Order to Answer. (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 5
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff filed by EHO360 LLC. 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 Exhibit(s) A) (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than April 13, 2021, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge Jane J. Boyle on 3/30/2021) (svc)
|
|
Filing 3
Summons Issued as to Crevice Capital Partners LLC, HealthView Capital Partners LLC, HospisRX LLC, Nicholas Opalich, Tammy Radcliff. (oyh)
|
|
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 Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (oyh)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by EHO360, LLC. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number 0539-11744276) 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. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A) (Wohlford, Lucas)
|
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.
