PilePro, LLC et al v. Chang et al
| Blue Emerald, Inc., PilePro Sales Corporation, PilePro Steel, LP, PilePro, LLC and Roberto R. Wendt |
| Humphrey Chang, Richard Heindl, Steelwall, GmbH and Matthias Weigel |
| 1:2012cv00829 |
| September 7, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Austin Office |
| Sam Sparks |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
190
ORDER DENYING 137 Motion for Order of Collateral Estoppel; GRANTING 158 Motion for Leave to File Amended Trial Witness List; DENYING 172 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; DENYING 180 Motion to Strike ; DENYING 182 Motion for Partial Findings under Rule 52(c); DENYING 186 Motion to Amend the Counterclaim to Conform to Proof at Trial. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (ml)
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER GRANTING 83 Motion to Disqualify Counsel the Law Firm of Shumway Van & Hansen. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael C. Van, Micah F. McBride, and the entire law firm of Shumway Van & Hansen are DISQUALIFIED from representing Plaintif fs (and Counter-Defendants and Third-Party Defendants) in this case; IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants, and Third-Party Defendants shall have THIRTY (30) days to retain new counsel in this matter. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (jk)
|
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 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.
