U.S. District Courts - Property Case Search

(#44) MINUTE ENTRY BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOAN B. GOTTSCHALL: BASED ON THE SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY AS TO DEFENDANTS JASON LEVECKE, ANDREA LEVECKE, CARL LEVECKE, AND NEISHA LEVECKE 37 , ALL CLAIMS AS TO THESE DEFENDANTS SHALL BE HELD IN ABEYANCE DUE TO THE AUTOMATIC BANKRUPTCY STAY. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO PLACE THIS CASE ON THE COURT'S INACTIVE DOCKET PENDING COMPLETION OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. COUNSEL SHOULD CONTACT THE COURTROOM DEPUTY IF THEY WISH TO MOVE THE CASE BACK TO THE COURT'S ACTIVE DOCKET AFTER ANY BANKRUPTCY CASE ENDS. CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. MAILED NOTICE (MJC, ) (ENTERED: 04/12/2016)

(#43) JUDGMENT SIGNED BY THE HONORABLE JOAN B. GOTTSCHALL ON 4/12/2016.MAILED NOTICE(MJC, ) (ENTERED: 04/12/2016)

(#45) ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF RELATED APPEAL: THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW, ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION ARE STAYED UNTIL THE MANDATE ISSUES TO THIS COURT FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN THE SIRIUS APPEAL. WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE IN THE SIRIUS APPEAL, THE PARTIES SHALL FILE A JOINT STATUS REPORT APPRISING THE COURT OF HOW THE PARTIES WISH TO PROCEED. WHILE THE STAY IS IN EFFECT, PLAINTIFF MAY AMEND THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT. DEFENDANTS ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO FILE ANY RESPONSIVE PLEADING DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE STAY IN THE EVENT PLAINTIFF AMENDS THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT. IF A RESPONSIVE PLEADING IS REQUIRED IN THIS LITIGATION AFTER THE SECOND CIRCUIT ISSUES ITS MANDATE TO THIS COURT IN THE SIRIUS APPEAL, THE PARTIES SHALL AGREE ON A DATE BY WHICH THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING WILL BE FILED AND SUBMIT THAT DATE TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL IN THEIR JOINT STATUS REPORT. (AS FURTHER SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER.) (SIGNED BY JUDGE ANDREW L. CARTER, JR ON 10/19/2015) (SPO) (MAIN DOCUMENT 45 REPLACED ON 10/21/2015) (SPO). (ENTERED: 10/20/2015)

(#44) ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE GRANTING 37 MOTION FOR ROBERT E. ALLEN TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. (SIGNED BY JUDGE ANDREW L. CARTER, JR ON 10/1/2015) (SPO) (ENTERED: 10/01/2015)

(#29) RECEIPT OF REMAND FROM KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. (AD) (ENTERED: 01/11/2016)

(#28) ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' 13 MOTION TO REMAND; THE COURT GRANTS PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND AND REMANDS THE CASE TO STATE COURT, BY JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN. (AD) (ENTERED: 12/16/2015)

(#28) NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER GRANTING 25 MOTION FOR ORDER; GRANTING 27 MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE ERIC F. MELGREN ON 1/6/2016. (SZ) (ENTERED: 01/06/2016)

(#27) MOTION TO AMEND 24 ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS, BY PLAINTIFF CHARLES W. CAMPBELL. (REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE KENNETH G. GALE) (SZ) (ENTERED: 12/29/2015)

(#100) ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT BYCVS PHARMACY, INC.. (GEYERMAN, GRANT) (FILED ON 3/28/2016) (ENTERED: 03/28/2016)

(#99) NOTICE RE: FILING OF UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS BY CVS PHARMACY, INC. RE 97 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 EXHIBIT DEFENDANT CVS HEALTH CORPORATION'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (UNREDACTED), # 2 EXHIBIT SECOND DECLARATION OF THOMAS S. MOFFATT (UNREDACTED))(SHUR, LUBA) (FILED ON 3/18/2016) MODIFIED ON 3/21/2016 (VLKS, COURT STAFF). (ENTERED: 03/18/2016)

(#30) MEMORANDUM ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION (DOC. NO. 23 ), IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS ARE GIVEN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO FILE AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 12/28/2015. 12/28/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP AND E-MAILED.(AMAS) (ENTERED: 12/28/2015)

(#29) MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 12/28/2015. 12/28/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP AND E-MAILED.(AMAS) (ENTERED: 12/28/2015)

(#41) JOINT STATUS REPORT BY PLAINTIFF OKLAHOMA CITY CITY OF. (KEMPF, JOHN) (ENTERED: 12/30/2019)

(#40) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE BY LINDSAY N KISTLER ON BEHALF OF ALL PLAINTIFFS (KISTLER, LINDSAY) (ENTERED: 12/13/2019)

(#43) (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER LIFTING STAY; SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ANDHEARING ON MOTIONS TO TRANSFER AND DISMISS 31 , 38 , 39 , 40 BY JUDGE JAMES V. SELNA: THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION HAVING DENIED THE MOTION BY THE PRESENT PLAINTIFFS TO CENTRALIZE A NUMBER OF SIMILAR PENDING ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1407, THE COURT NOW LIFTS THE STAY AND SETS THEFOLLOWING BRIEFING SCHEDULE: MOTION HEARING ON 9/1/2015 AT 9:00 AM BEFORE JUDGE JAMES V. SELNA. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR COMPLETE DETAILS) (MU) (ENTERED: 08/10/2015)

(#42) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO RESCHEDULE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SUSPEND DEADLINE UNDER L.R. 23-3 TO FILE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION FILED BY PLAINTIFFS COACHELLA SELF STORAGE LLC, JAMES PILCHER, SUSAN PILCHER, CHARLES SERRANO, BARBARA SLOAN, SUSAN WELLS, MARTIN WELLS. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 PROPOSED ORDER) (HARTLEY, JASON) (ENTERED: 08/10/2015)

(#65) ORDER BY JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN GRANTING DEFENDANT KING COUNTY'S 46 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 55 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FROM THE COURT'S READING OF PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT, THIS RULING RESOLVES THE ISSUES RAISED BY THEIR LITIGATION. IF THERE ARE ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DECIDED, THE PARTIES ARE INVITED TO BRING THEM TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION. IF NOT, DEFENDANT IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT REFLECTING THE OUTCOME OF THESE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND TERMINATING THE LAWSUIT. (PM) (ENTERED: 04/20/2016)

(#64) MINUTE ENTRY FOR PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN- DEP CLERK: RHONDA MILLER; PLA COUNSEL: THOMAS STEWART, ELIZABETH MCCULLEY; DEF COUNSEL: DAVID FREEBURG, EMILY HARRIS, DAVID HACKETT; CR: NANCY BAUER; MOTION HEARING HELD ON 4/14/2016 55 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY EUGENE MOREL, BARBARA NEIGHBORS, TRACY NEIGHBORS, LUCRETIA VANDERWENDE, THOMAS E. HORNISH AND SUZANNE J. HORNISH JOINT LIVING TRUST, HEBERT MOORE, ARUL MENEZES, LAKE SAMMAMISH 4257 LLC, ELIZABETH MOREL, ELYNNE MOORE, 46 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY KING COUNTY. ORAL ARGUMENT PRESENTED. COURT WILL ISSUE WRITTEN OPINION IN TEN DAYS. (RM) (ENTERED: 04/15/2016)

(#84) TRIAL BRIEF BY NATHAN BURGOON, CALEB LANDERS. (TERRELL, BETH) (FILED ON 12/7/2015) (ENTERED: 12/07/2015)

(#83) EXHIBIT LIST BY NATHAN BURGOON, CALEB LANDERS.. (TERRELL, BETH) (FILED ON 12/7/2015) (ENTERED: 12/07/2015)

(#45) NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS FILED BY BEN SCHMUCKER CONSTRUCTION, LLP. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 DEPO TRANSCRIPT - BILLY E. PURSLEY, JR., # 2 DEPO TRANSCRIPT - SGT. JONATHAN GRAY, # 3 DEPO TRANSCRIPT - RUSSELL D. WILLIAMS, # 4 EXHIBIT TO DEPOSITIONS)RELATED DOCUMENT(S) 44 .(AYERS, ANDREW) MODIFIED TEXT ON 3/24/2016 (H,JD). (ENTERED: 03/24/2016)

(#44) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS RUSSELL WILLIAMS AND BEN SCHMUCKER CONSTRUCTION, LLP. (AYERS, ANDREW) MODIFIED TEXT ON 3/24/2016 (H,JD). (ENTERED: 03/24/2016)

(#22) NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE BY WILLIAM GRAYSON LAMBERT ON BEHALF OF PERSHING LLC. (FILER CONFIRMS CONTACT INFO IN ECF IS CURRENT.) (LAMBERT, WILLIAM) (ENTERED: 11/23/2015)

(#21) ANSWER TO 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED BY PERSHING LLC. UNLESS EXEMPTED, ATTORNEYS WHO ARE NOT ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MUST SEEK ADMISSION PROMPTLY. FORMS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND EXEMPTION INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND AT WWW.TXND.USCOURTS.GOV, OR BY CLICKING HERE: ATTORNEY INFORMATION - BAR MEMBERSHIP. IF ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT SATISFIED WITHIN 21 DAYS, THE CLERK WILL NOTIFY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. (FARRELL, THOMAS) (ENTERED: 07/30/2015)

(#40) OPINION AND ORDER RE: (7 IN 1:14-MD-02589-JMF) MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT. FILED BY NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, L.L.C., DIRECT EDGE ECN, L.L.C., CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE, INC., NASDAQ OMX BX, INC., THE NASDAQ STOCK MARKET L.L.C., BATS GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., NYSE ARCA, INC., (23 IN 1:14-MD-02589-JMF) MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., BARCLAYS PLC, (15 IN 1:14-MD-02589-JMF) MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., BARCLAYS PLC: FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS IN THESE CASES ARE GRANTED, AND THE COMPLAINTS ARE DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY. THAT LEAVES ONLY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER GREAT PACIFIC AND THE SDNY PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINTS FOR A SECOND AND THIRD TIME, RESPECTIVELY. THE SDNY PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ASK FOR LEAVE TO AMEND, AND THE COURT WILL NOT GRANT THEM LEAVE SUA SPONTE, BOTH BECAUSE AMENDMENT WOULD LIKELY BE FUTILE AND BECAUSE, IN GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE COURT EXPRESSLY WARNED THE SDNY PLAINTIFFS THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS. SEE, E.G., CLARK V. KITT, NO. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, AT *15 (S.D.N.Y. AUG. 15, 2014) (HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO REMEDY THE COMPLAINT'S DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY AN EARLIER MOTION TO DISMISS "IS ALONE SUFFICIENT GROUND TO DENY LEAVE TO AMEND"); SEE ALSO, E.G., RUOTOLO V. CITY OF N.Y., 514 F.3D 184, 191 (2D CIR. 2008) (AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD RECEIVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT). (SEE 14-CV-2811, DOCKET NO. 246). GREAT PACIFIC, HOWEVER, DOES SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND (GREAT PACIFIC MEM. 25), AND ITS REQUEST IS ON FIRM GROUND GIVEN "THE LIBERAL STANDARD SET FORTH IN RULE 15" OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE." LORELEY FIN. NO. 3 LTD., 2015 WL 4492258, AT *24. AS DISCUSSED, MANY OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TURN ON GREAT PACIFIC'S FAILURE TO PLEAD SUFFICIENT FACTS TO ESTABLISH A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM RATHER THAN AN INHERENTLY FLAWED LEGAL THEORY. AND WHILE GREAT PACIFIC WAS ALSO GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT AFTER BARCLAYS'S INITIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AND WARNED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES ALLEGED BY BARCLAYS (SEE BARCLAYS'S REPLY MEM. 10), THE INITIAL MOTION AND THE PRESENT MOTION ARE NOT IDENTICAL AND THE EARLIER AMENDMENT WAS MADE "IN THE CRITICAL ABSENCE OF A DEFINITIVE RULING." LORELEY FIN. NO. 3 LTD., 2015 WL 4492258, AT *25. PUT SIMPLY, THE COURT CANNOT SAY THAT GREAT PACIFIC IS UNABLE TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS AND, THEREFORE, THAT AMENDMENT WOULD NECESSARILY BE FUTILE. SEE LUCENTE V. INT'L BUS. MACHINES CORP., 310 F.3D 243, 258 (2D CIR. 2002). ("[A]MENDMENT... IS FUTILE IF THE PROPOSED CLAIM COULD NOT WITHSTAND A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6)."). ACCORDINGLY, GREAT PACIFIC IS GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THIS OPINION AND ORDER. THAT SAID, BECAUSE GREAT PACIFIC'S CASE (15-CV-168) WILL BE THE ONLY MATTER STILL PENDING IN THE MDL, THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING NO LATER THAN TWO WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THIS OPINION AND ORDER WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT SUGGEST TO THE JPML THAT 15-CV-168 BE REMANDED TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND THE MDL CLOSED. AS DISCUSSED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS OPINION AND ORDER, THE COURT'S TASK IN DECIDING THE PRESENT MOTIONS WAS NOT TO WADE INTO THE LARGER PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT HFT THAT WAS SPARKED BY MICHAEL LEWIS'S BOOK FLASH BOYS. LEWIS AND THE CRITICS OF HFT MAY BE RIGHT IN ARGUING THAT IT SERVES NO PRODUCTIVE PURPOSE AND MERELY ALLOWS CERTAIN TRADERS TO EXPLOIT TECHNOLOGICAL INEFFICIENCIES IN THE MARKETS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER TRADERS. THEY MAY ALSO BE RIGHT THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR REGULATORY OR OTHER ACTION FROM THE SEC OR ENTITIES SUCH AS THE EXCHANGES AND BARCLAYS. THOSE, HOWEVER, ARE DEBATES AND TASKS FOR OTHERS. THE COURT'S NARROW TASK WAS, INSTEAD, TO DECIDE WHETHER THE COMPLAINTS IN THESE CASES WERE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS. HAVING CONCLUDED THAT THEY ARE NOT, THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE AND ARE DISMISSED. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO TERMINATE 14-MD-2589, DOCKET NOS. 7, 15, AND 23, AND TO CLOSE ALL MEMBER CASES EXCEPT FOR 15-CV-168. (SIGNED BY JUDGE JESSE M. FURMAN ON 8/26/2015) ***AS PER CHAMBERS, FILED IN ALL MEMBER CASES: 1:14-MD-02589-JMF ET AL.(TN) MODIFIED ON 8/26/2015 (TN). (ENTERED: 08/26/2015)

(#39) LETTER ADDRESSED TO JUDGE JESSE M. FURMAN FROM JEFFREY T. SCOTT DATED JULY 1, 2015 RE: RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM CITY OF PROVIDENCE PLAINTIFFS DATED JUNE 29, 2015. DOCUMENT FILED BY BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BARCLAYS PLC.FILED IN ASSOCIATED CASES: 1:14-MD-02589-JMF ET AL.(SCOTT, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 07/01/2015)

(#87) REPLY TO RESPONSE TO 79 FIRST MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF DAVID ARONSTEIN. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 EXHIBIT)(STRAGE, MICHAEL) (ENTERED: 02/17/2016)

(#86) ORDER GRANTING 84 MOTION TO RESET. MOTION HEARING SET FOR 3/30/2016 IS VACATED AND RESET FOR 4/4/2016 AT 09:00 AM IN COURTROOM C204 BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE NINA Y. WANG. BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE NINA Y. WANG ON 2/9/16. TEXT ONLY ENTRY (NYWLC1) (ENTERED: 02/09/2016)

(#145) CONSENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE/REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BY ROBERT J. BOBACK, TIVERSA HOLDING CORP.. MOTION(S) REFERRED TO MAUREEN P. KELLY. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 PROPOSED ORDER) (SHAW, JARROD) (ENTERED: 04/12/2016)

(#144) BRIEF IN OPPOSITION RE 137 MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY LABMD, INC. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 DAUGHERTY DECLARATION, # 2 EXHIBIT A, # 3 EXHIBIT B, # 4 EXHIBIT C, # 5 EXHIBIT D, # 6 EXHIBIT E, # 7 EXHIBIT F, # 8 EXHIBIT G, # 9 EXHIBIT H, # 10 EXHIBIT I, # 11 EXHIBIT J, # 12 EXHIBIT K, # 13 EXHIBIT L, # 14 EXHIBIT M, # 15 EXHIBIT N, # 16 EXHIBIT O, # 17 EXHIBIT P, # 18 EXHIBIT Q, # 19 EXHIBIT R, # 20 EXHIBIT S, # 21 EXHIBIT T, # 22 EXHIBIT U, # 23 EXHIBIT V, # 24 EXHIBIT W, # 25 EXHIBIT X, # 26 EXHIBIT Y, # 27 EXHIBIT Z, # 28 EXHIBIT AA, # 29 EXHIBIT BB) (HAWKINS, JAMES) 11/2016. (ENTERED: 04/08/2016)

(#31) MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE TEXT FOR DETAILS. SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN D. BATES ON 3/24/16. (LCJDB3) (ENTERED: 03/24/2016)

(#30) ORDER GRANTING 10 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING AS MOOT 27 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISREGARD NEW ARGUMENTS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON REPLY, AND DISMISSING THIS CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY. SEE TEXT OF ORDER AND ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR DETAILS. SIGNED BY JUDGE JOHN D. BATES ON 3/24/16. (LCJDB3) (ENTERED: 03/24/2016)

(#72) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: FOR ATTORNEY GAYLE I JENKINS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF COR CLEARING, LLC. FILED BY PLAINTIFF COR CLEARING, LLC. (JENKINS, GAYLE) (ENTERED: 12/11/2015)

(#71) CIVIL TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER BY JUDGE JESUS G. BERNAL. AMENDED PLEADINGS DUE BY 11/23/2015. DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 4/27/2016. MOTIONS DUE BY 5/16/2016. LAST DATE TO CONDUCT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS 3/21/2016(ATTORNEY OFFICER SETTLEMENT PANEL. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 6/13/2016 11:00 AM BEFORE JUDGE JESUS G. BERNAL. JURY TRIAL SET FOR 6/28/2016 09:00 AM BEFORE JUDGE JESUS G. BERNAL. (MGA) (ENTERED: 12/09/2015)

(#49) REPLY TO RESPONSE TO 45 MOTION TO DISMISS, FILED BY DEFENDANT THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON. (KNEPPER, MATTHEW) (ENTERED: 07/28/2015)

(#48) ORDER GRANTING 47 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO REPLY TO 45 MOTION TO DISMISS. REPLIES DUE BY 7/31/2015. SIGNED BY JUDGE ANDREW P. GORDON ON 7/15/2015. (COPIES HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED PURSUANT TO THE NEF - DC) (ENTERED: 07/16/2015)

(#43) JUDGMENT AS TO KURTIS K. KRUEGER AND MATTIE M. KRUEGER ONLY. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CIVIL NOTICE - APPEAL). (LMB) (ENTERED: 05/18/2015)

(#42) JUDGMENT AS TO LAKE TRUST DEFENDANTS ONLY. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CIVIL NOTICE - APPEAL). (LMB) (ENTERED: 05/18/2015)