Singer v. Langis
| Peter Singer |
| Langis a Nevada limited liability company doing business as Ororo |
| 2:2021cv00630 |
| October 25, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Jill N Parrish |
| Dustin B Pead |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 5, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 The court has reviewed #11 Defendant's Notice of Good Cause and is satisfied that Defendant has made a prima facie showing that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case. (skd) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Good Cause by Langis (Peterson, Carsten) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Civil Standing Order filed by Defendant Langis (Peterson, Carsten) |
Filing 9
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead under 28:636 (b)(1)(A), Magistrate to hear and determine all nondispositive pretrial matters. No attached document. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 10/29/21. (ss)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Civil Standing Order #4 filed by Plaintiff Peter Singer (Cutt, David) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to diversity jurisdiction. Defendant Langis, LLC is to respond before November 12, 2021. A failure to respond will result in a remand of this case to state court. See order. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 10/28/21. (alf)
|
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Langis.(Peterson, Carsten) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Stacey L Beaumont on behalf of Langis (Beaumont, Stacey) |
|
Filing 4
CIVIL STANDING ORDER Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 10/28/2021. (ss)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ADR, e-mailed or mailed to Defendant Langis, Plaintiff Peter Singer. (nmt) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 3rd District Court Summit County, case number 210500339, (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AUTDC-4147055) filed by Langis. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) Assigned to Judge Jill N. Parrish (Peterson, Carsten) |
| Filing 1 Case has been indexed and assigned to Judge Jill N. Parrish. Defendant Langis is directed to E-File the Notice of Removal and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 402.00 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. (nmt) |
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
| Search for this case: Singer v. Langis | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Peter Singer | |
| Represented By: | David A. Cutt |
| Represented By: | Margie G. Coles |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Langis a Nevada limited liability company doing business as Ororo | |
| Represented By: | Carsten A. Peterson |
| Represented By: | Stacey L Beaumont |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
