Steelco v. KPB Steel et al
| Steelco |
| Westfield Insurance Company, South Mountain Builders and KPB Steel |
| 1:2019cv00118 |
| October 15, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Cecilia M Romero |
| Miller Act |
| 40 U.S.C. ยง 0270 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #2 Complaint. Answer deadline updated for KPB Steel answer due 12/17/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero on 12/10/2019. (nl)
|
| Filing 11 STIPULATED Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer by KPB Steel. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Deiss, Andrew) Modified on 12/10/2019 by changing from a Stipulation to a Stipulated Motion. (las). |
| Filing 10 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Nathaniel D. Ashcraft replacing Benjamin D. Johnson as counsel on behalf of Steelco. (Ashcraft, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 9 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** SUMMONS Returned Executed by Steelco as to KPB Steel served on 10/24/2019, answer due 11/14/2019. (Johnson, Benjamin) |
| Filing 8 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** SUMMONS Returned Executed by Steelco as to South Mountain Builders served on 10/22/2019, answer due 11/12/2019. (Johnson, Benjamin) |
| Filing 7 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** SUMMONS Returned Executed by Steelco as to Westfield Insurance Company served on 10/17/2019, answer due 11/7/2019. (Johnson, Benjamin) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO PROPOSE SCHEDULE - Plaintiff must propose a schedule to defendant in the form of a draft Attorney Planning Meeting Report within the earlier of fourteen(14) days after any defendant has appeared or twenty-eight (28) days after any defendant has been served with the complaint. See order for additional instructions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero on 10/16/2019. (nl)
|
| Filing 5 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT**Summons Issued Electronically as to Westfield Insurance Company. Instructions to Counsel:1. Click on the document number.2. If you are prompted for an ECF login, enter your 'Attorney' login to CM/ECF.3. Print the issued summons for service. (tlh) |
| Filing 4 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT**Summons Issued Electronically as to South Mountain Builders. Instructions to Counsel:1. Click on the document number.2. If you are prompted for an ECF login, enter your 'Attorney' login to CM/ECF.3. Print the issued summons for service. (tlh) |
| Filing 3 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT**Summons Issued Electronically as to KPB Steel. Instructions to Counsel:1. Click on the document number.2. If you are prompted for an ECF login, enter your 'Attorney' login to CM/ECF.3. Print the issued summons for service. (tlh) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 1088-3394657) filed by Steelco. Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero (Johnson, Benjamin) |
| Filing 1 Case has been indexed and assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero. Plaintiff Steelco is directed to E-File the Complaint and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 400.00 by the end of the business day.NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts #PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (tlh) |
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 Utah 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.
