Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Tri-Pak, Inc.
| Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| Tri Pak, Inc. and Tri-Pak, Inc. |
| 3:2018cv05852 |
| October 19, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Ronald B Leighton |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Steven William Block for Defendant Tri-Pak, Inc. from December 3, 2018 - December 31, 2018. (Block, Steven) |
| Filing 15 DEMAND for JURY TRIAL by Defendant Tri-Pak, Inc. (Block, Steven) |
| Filing 14 ANSWER to #8 Amended Complaint by Tri-Pak, Inc..(Block, Steven) |
| Filing 13 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT indicating no Corporate Parents and/or Affiliates. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Tri-Pak, Inc. (Block, Steven) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Steven William Block on behalf of Defendant Tri-Pak, Inc.. (Block, Steven) |
| Filing 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company re #8 Amended Complaint (Wackerbarth, Tim) |
Filing 10
ORDER re #9 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Kyle Wallor for Union Pacific Railroad Company, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(SP)
|
| Filing 9 APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Kyle Wallor FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-5528651 (Wackerbarth, Tim) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) Tri-Pak, Inc., filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit)(Wackerbarth, Tim) |
| Filing 7 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Tri-Pak, Inc. on 10/23/2018, filed by Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Wackerbarth, Tim) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 1/22/2019, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 1/7/2019, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 1/14/2019, by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)
|
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying Corporate Parent Union Pacific Corporation for Union Pacific Railroad Company. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company (Wackerbarth, Tim) |
| Filing 3 PRAECIPE to attach document (Praecipe to Add Exhibits) re #1 Complaint by Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Wackerbarth, Tim) |
| Filing 2 Summons(es) Electronically Issued as to defendant Tri-Pak, Inc. (KB) |
| Judge Ronald B. Leighton added. (KB) |
| NOTICE Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1, Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad Company must file a Corporate Disclosure Statement by 10/29/2018. (KB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Breach of Contract against defendant(s) Tri Pak, Inc. (Receipt # 0981-5514821), filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons)(Wackerbarth, Tim) |
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 Washington 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.
