Neblett v. Clairmont Paciello & Co., P.C. et al

Filing 61

ORDER (MEMORANDUM filed previously as separate docket entry) - DENYING Motion 51 to Change Venue filed by Mountjoy Chilton Medley LLP; SCHEDULING a Telephonic Initial Case Management Conference for 10/31/2016 10:00 AM before Honorable Matthew W. Brann. (See Order for complete details.)Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 10/5/2016. (km)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN P. NEBLETT, as Chapter 7 Trustee of VALLEY FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CLAIRMONT PACIELLO & CO., P.C., MOUNTJOY CHILTON MEDLEY LLP, MICHAEL DE LEON HAWTHORNE and THOMPSON COBURN LLP, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 4:15-cv-01622 (Judge Brann) ORDER AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2016, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Mountjoy Chilton Medley, LLP’s Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 51, is DENIED. -1- 2. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 Initial Case Management Conference, previously scheduled for August 2, 2016, is rescheduled for October 31, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. 3. Counsel are advised to comply with Local Rule 16.3, which requires lead counsel for each party to meet prior to the management conference and complete a “Joint Case Management Plan” form that must be filed with the Court at least five (5) days prior to the initial case management conference. 4. Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the conference call. The Court may be reached in chambers at 570‐323‐9772. At the time the call is placed, all counsel shall be on the line and prepared to proceed. 5. The Court’s preference is that counsel do not participate in telephonic conference calls by cellular phone or other mobile device. BY THE COURT: /s Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge -2-

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?