Chrismar, Inc. v. Buckalew
Petitioner: Chrismar, Inc.
Respondent: David Buckalew
Case Number: 2:2022mc00015
Filed: August 26, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Presiding Judge: Elizabeth W Hanes
Referring Judge: Robert J Krask
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09 U.S.C. ยง 1 U.S. Arbitration Act
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 18, 2022 Filing 10 RESPONSE in Opposition re #6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Chrismar, Inc.. (Powers, Edward)
October 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER granting #8 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Petitioner shall file its response to Respondent's #6 Motion to Dismiss on or before October 18, 2022, and Respondent shall file any reply on or before November 7, 2022. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes on 10/7/22. (jhie, )
October 6, 2022 Filing 8 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Chrismar, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Agreed Order)(Powers, Edward)
September 26, 2022 Filing 7 Memorandum in Support re #6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by David Buckalew. (Waters, Deborah)
September 26, 2022 Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by David Buckalew. (Waters, Deborah)
September 15, 2022 Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Chrismar, Inc. David Buckalew served on 9/9/2022, answer due 9/30/2022 (Powers, Edward)
August 29, 2022 Filing 4 Summons Issued as to David Buckalew, NOTICE TO ATTORNEY: Please remove the headers and print two duplexed copies of the electronically issued summons for each Defendant. Please serve one copy of the summons and a copy of the Complaint upon each Defendant. Please ensure that your process server returns the service copy (executed or unexecuted) to your attention and electronically file it using the filing events, Summons Returned Executed or Summons Returned Unexecuted. (afar, )
August 26, 2022 Filing 3 Proposed Summons re #1 Civil Miscellaneous Case, by Chrismar, Inc.. (Powers, Edward)
August 26, 2022 Filing 2 Financial Interest Disclosure Statement (Local Rule 7.1) by Chrismar, Inc.. (Powers, Edward)
August 26, 2022 Filing 1 Civil Miscellaneous Case Chrismar, Inc. v. David Buckalew Petition to Compel Arbitration ( Filing fee $ 49, receipt number AVAEDC-8543919.), filed by Chrismar, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Advanced Wage Agreement, #2 Exhibit B - Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Stay, #3 Exhibit C - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss State Court Case, #4 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Powers, Edward)

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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chrismar, Inc. v. Buckalew
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Chrismar, Inc.
Represented By: Edward James Powers
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 ]
Respondent: David Buckalew
Represented By: Deborah C. Waters
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.


Why Is My Information Online?