McKinsey & Company, Inc. v. Boyd, Christopher et al
| McKinsey & Company, Inc. |
| Christopher Boyd, Nathan Gordon, Stephanie Defoe-Haskins, Laura Gordon, Steven Boyd, Bryan Bainbridge, Vincent Bresette, Nicholas Deperry, Christopher Hicks and Henry M. Buffalo |
| 3:2022cv00155 |
| March 22, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| William M Conley |
| Stephen L Crocker |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 6, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 27 Response to Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Defendants Bryan Bainbridge, Christopher Boyd, Steven Boyd, Vincent Bresette, Henry M. Buffalo, Stephanie Defoe-Haskins, Nicholas Deperry, Laura Gordon, Nathan Gordon, Christopher Hicks re: #4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Frazer, Thomas) |
| Filing 26 Brief in Opposition by Defendants Bryan Bainbridge, Christopher Boyd, Steven Boyd, Vincent Bresette, Henry M. Buffalo, Stephanie Defoe-Haskins, Nicholas Deperry, Laura Gordon, Nathan Gordon, Christopher Hicks re: #24 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by McKinsey & Company, Inc. (Frazer, Thomas) |
Filing 25
** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc., moved for preliminary injunction to prevent a tribal action for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. #4 .) Following its usual procedures, the court gave defendants 21 days from service to file an opposition brief and response to plaintiff's proposed findings of fact. (Dkt. 9 .) The last defendant was served on April 5, 2022, making the opposition deadline April 26, 2022. Defendants answered plaintiff's complaint (dkt. #22 ) on April 25, 2022, and filed an amended answer (dkt. #23 ) on April 26, 2022. Neither answer could be construed as an opposition to the preliminary injunction. It is now May 3, 2022, and defendants still have not opposed the motion for preliminary injunction or responded to plaintiff's proposed facts. Plaintiff has now asked the court to grant the injunction as unopposed. (Dkt. #24 .) While the court is inclined to grant that request given defendants' outright failure to follow the court's procedures, out of deference, the court will give defendants one last opportunity to do so. However, if defendants fail to file their opposition and response to proposed findings of fact by this Friday, May 6, 2022, at noon, the court will enter the injunction as proposed by plaintiff. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/3/2022. (rks)
|
| Filing 24 Notice of Motion and Motion to Grant Motion for Preliminary Injunction as Unopposed by Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc.. Response due 5/10/2022. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Special Appearance, #2 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order Submitted to Tribal Court 3-25-22, #3 Exhibit 3 - 4-20-22 email between counsel) (Hanus, David) |
| Set Telephone Pretrial or Status Conference: Telephone Pretrial Conference set for 5/25/2022 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Counsel for Plaintiff responsible for setting up the call to chambers at (608) 264-5153. [#Standing Order Governing Preliminary Pretrial Conference attached] (rks) |
| Filing 23 Amended ANSWER by Defendants Bryan Bainbridge, Christopher Boyd, Steven Boyd, Vincent Bresette, Henry M. Buffalo, Stephanie Defoe-Haskins, Nicholas Deperry, Laura Gordon, Nathan Gordon, Christopher Hicks. (Frazer, Thomas) |
| Filing 22 ANSWER by Defendants Bryan Bainbridge, Christopher Boyd, Steven Boyd, Vincent Bresette, Henry M. Buffalo, Stephanie Defoe-Haskins, Nicholas Deperry, Laura Gordon, Nathan Gordon, Christopher Hicks. (Frazer, Thomas) |
| Filing 21 Notice of Appearance filed by Daniel Keenan Ryan for Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc.. (Ryan, Daniel) |
| Filing 20 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Stephanie Defoe-Haskins served on 4/4/2022, answer due 4/25/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 19 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Nathan Gordon served on 4/4/2022, answer due 4/25/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 18 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Christopher Hicks served on 4/4/2022, answer due 4/25/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 17 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Bryan Bainbridge served on 4/5/2022, answer due 4/26/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 16 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Vincent Bresette served on 4/1/2022, answer due 4/22/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 15 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Steven Boyd served on 4/1/2022, answer due 4/22/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 14 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Nicholas Deperry served on 4/4/2022, answer due 4/25/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 13 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Laura Gordon served on 4/4/2022, answer due 4/25/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 12 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Henry M. Buffalo served on 4/5/2022, answer due 4/26/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 11 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. Christopher Boyd served on 4/1/2022, answer due 4/22/2022. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 10 Proposed Findings of Fact filed by Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc. re: #4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Hanus, David) |
|
Filing 9
** TEXT ONLY ORDER ** The court is in receipt of plaintiff McKinsey and Company, Inc.'s motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. #4 .) Plaintiff should promptly serve the complaint, summons, motion for preliminary injunction, all supporting materials, and this order on defendants. Once served, plaintiff should file the proofs of service. Defendants may have 21 days from receipt of service to file their opposition brief, including responses to plaintiff's proposed findings of facts. The court's procedure on motions for injunctive relief is found here: # https://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Injunctive_Relief.pdf. Upon review of defendants' filings, the court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing or oral argument on the motion is necessary. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/25/2022. (rks)
|
| Filing 8 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (lak) |
| Case randomly assigned to District Judge William M. Conley and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (lak) |
| Standard attachments for Judge William M. Conley required to be served on all parties with summons or waiver of service: # NORTC, #Corporate Disclosure Statement. (lak) |
| Filing 7 Declaration of Gretchen Scheidler filed by Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc. re: #4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 6 Declaration of Tamara Rozina filed by Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc. re: #4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Chapter 4 Tribal Court, #2 Exhibit 2 - Chapter 31 Appellate Procedure) (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 5 Brief in Support of #4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 4 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc.. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc.. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 2 Notice of Appearance filed by David John Hanus for Plaintiff McKinsey & Company, Inc.. (Hanus, David) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0758-3025916.), filed by McKinsey & Company, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A - Summons and Complaint in Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Tribal Court, #3 Exhibit B - Chapter 1 Constitution and Bylaws, #4 Summons) (Hanus, David) |
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 Wisconsin 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.
