The Courtland Company, Inc. v. Union Carbide Corporation
| The Courtland Company, Inc. |
| Union Carbide Corporation |
| 2:2019cv00894 |
| December 13, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| John T Copenhaver |
| Environmental Matters |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 9607 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Courtland Company, Inc. for Requests for Document Production, Set One. (Callaghan, Michael)
|
|
Filing 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Courtland Company, Inc. for Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures. (Callaghan, Michael)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION by The Courtland Company, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation for Entry of Stipulated Order Coordinating Case Schedules and Setting Plan for Discovery and Case Management. (Attachment: #1 Proposed Order)(Callaghan, Michael) (Modified on 2/3/2020 to add party filer) (kew).
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #8 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/29/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
|
|
Filing 11
STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Martin A. Shelton on behalf of Union Carbide Corporation. Local counsel: Patricia M. Bello. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7527455. (Bello, Patricia)
|
|
Filing 10
MEMORANDUM by Union Carbide Corporation in support of #9 MOTION by Union Carbide Corporation to Dismiss #1 Complaint. (Bello, Patricia) (Modified on 1/29/2020 to remove link to #8 motion) (kew).
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION by Union Carbide Corporation to Dismiss #1 Complaint. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Bello, Patricia)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION by Union Carbide Corporation to Exceed Page Limit for Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Bello, Patricia)
|
|
Filing 7
STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Michael C. Donovan on behalf of The Courtland Company, Inc. Local counsel: Michael O. Callaghan. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7519096. (Callaghan, Michael)
|
|
Filing 6
STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Thomas A. Smith on behalf of The Courtland Company, Inc. Local counsel: Michael O. Callaghan. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7505508. (Callaghan, Michael)
|
|
Filing 5
JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO #1 COMPLAINT to 1/28/2020 by Union Carbide Corporation, The Courtland Company, Inc. (Bello, Patricia) (Modified on 1/6/2020 to add party filer) (kew).
|
|
Filing 4
SUMMONS ACCEPTED FOR SERVICE BY SECRETARY OF STATE on 12/17/2019 as to Union Carbide Corporation. Certified Mail Number: 92148901125134100002631403. (lca)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER IN RE: ASSIGNMENT AND REFERRAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS AND MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGES ENTERED JANUARY 4, 2016. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (klc)
|
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Union Carbide Corporation, re: #1 Complaint. Summons returnable 21 days. Instructions to Counsel: This is your electronic summons. Please print as many copies of the Summons and Complaint as are necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See Proof of Service page of this Summons form for filing a return of service if required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). (st)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT. Filing Fee $400.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7486412. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Proposed Summons as to Union Carbide Corporation, #4 Civil Cover Sheet) (st)
|
|
CASE assigned to Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. (klc)
|
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.
- 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.
