Roberts v. Rucker Restaurant Holdings LLC et al
| Eva Roberts |
| Rucker Restaurant Holdings LLC and RRH-Austin LLC |
| 1:2019cv00855 |
| August 30, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Robert Pitman |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER that the removing party supplement the record with state court pleadings, if it has not already done so. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dl)
|
| Filing 2 JS44 (Civil Cover Sheet) submitted by RRH-Austin LLC, Rucker Restaurant Holdings LLC. (Egliskis, Shan) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by RRH-Austin LLC, Rucker Restaurant Holdings LLC (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0542-12549382), filed by RRH-Austin LLC, Rucker Restaurant Holdings LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Egliskis, Shan) |
| DEMAND for Trial by Jury by RRH-Austin LLC, Rucker Restaurant Holdings LLC. (dl) |
| Case assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (dl) |
| If ordered by the court, all referrals and consents in this case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Hightower. (dl) |
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 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.
