Trade Well International v. United Central Bank
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Opinion and Order, and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 136 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Opinion and Order, # 3 Docket Sheet) (lak)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TRADE WELL INTERNATIONAL,
A Pakistan Corporation,
DELLS LODGING OPERATOR, INC., and
DELLS ESTATE LLC, (both are Wisconsin
Case No. 12-cv-701 JDP
UNITED CENTRAL BANK, a
CIRCUIT RULE 3(C) DOCKETING STATEMENT
Please Take Notice, that the Plaintiffs-Appellant, TRADE WELL INTERNATIONAL, (“Trade Well”) by and through their attorney, MAURICE JAMES
SALEM, hereby set forth a Docketing Statement pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(C).
The District Court has international diversity jurisdiction over the dispute in this
action, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3). The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of
interests and costs. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
(SECP), established under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act
1997, Plaintiff-Appellant Trade Well International is a Private Limited Company, (PVT)
Limited, with five (5) owners who are all citizens of, and reside in, Pakistan, and the
Company’s principle place of business is in Pakistan.
Defendant-Appellee, United Central Bank, is a Texas Corporation with its principal place of business being in Texas. Thus, there is complete diversity and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, in that the decision
from which this appeal is sought is a final order that dismissed the counterclaim in this
Date of final order being appealed is: September 24, 2015. (Doc. 135)
Motion for reconsideration not filed
Notice of Appeal filed: October 22, 2015.
There is no prior related action and this appeal is from a final order.
This appeal is taken from the District Court’s September 24, 2015, Order (Doc.
135) that denied Plaintiff motion to vacate default judgments on the counterclaim and the
main action (Doc. 125).
1. Whether the district court lacked both personal jurisdiction and subject matter
jurisdiction, after removing its counsel and while on appeal, to continue litigation and to
enter a default judgment on the main action and counterclaim.
2. Whether Plaintiff’s diligence in seeking new counsel was sufficient?
3. Whether the Seventh Circuit’s decision remanding this case is also a mandate
to vacate the orders that were entered during the appeal and that resulted from the erroneous orders entered by that district court, which were vacated on appeal.
Record on Appeal
Motion to Vacate Orders (Doc. 125)
Affidavit of Plaintiff’s Attorney (Doc. 127)
Order setting hearing (Doc. 130)
Brief in Reply to Order (Doc. 131)
Brief Exhibits A - D (Doc. 131-1 to 4)
Conclusion of Law (Doc. 133)
Transcripts of hearing September 17, 2015
Order denying motion, September 24, 2015 (Doc. 135)
Dated: Palos Heights, Illinois
October 22, 2015
/s/Maurice James Salem,
Law Offices of Salem & Associates
Attorney for Appellants
7156 W. 127th Street, B-149
Palos Heights, IL. 60463
Tel. (708) 277-4775
Fax (708) 448-4515
Certificate of Service
I, Maurice James Salem, am the attorney for Appellants and I hereby certify that I served
a true copy of the above Docketing Statement on counsels, on October 22, 2015, by this
Court CM/ECF system.
/s/ Maurice James Salem
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?