• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
35 results

Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. B...

Docket A24-1389, Minnesota State, Court of Appeals (Aug. 30, 2024)
Case TypeStandard - Civil - Other
TagsStandard, Civil, Other
DeadlineEvent Oral Panel - scheduled Event - Oral Panel - scheduled for 04/23/2025, 9:30 a.m., #100
Appellant Chris Beck
Appellant Arthur Becker-Weidman
Appellant Susan Becker-Weidman
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Order - Grant Pro Hac Vice Attorney Michael A. Scodro o/b/o Respondent Baker Tilly

Document Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. Baker Tilly US, LLP, Respondent., A24-1389, 1367279 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2025)
Minnesota counsel for respondent Baker Tilly US LLP moves to admit attorney Michael A. Scodro of Illinois, pro hac vice.
The motion addresses the relevant criteria.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Attorney Michael A. Scodro is admitted pro hac vice and authorized to appear before this court in connection with appeal A24-1389.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Order - Grant Motion to Accept a Late Reply Brief

Document Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. Baker Tilly US, LLP, Respondent., A24-1389, 1364724 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2025)
The motion notes that appellants timely submitted a reply brief for filing on February 13, 2025, and that the clerk of the appellate courts rejected the brief “due to the signature on the document not correlating with the E-filer account.” The motion indicates that the incorrect signature was included on the reply brief “[d]ue to an inadvertent clerical error.”
Appellants submitted a conforming reply brief for filing pending this court’s decision on appellants’ motion.
In light of the lapsed brief deadline, and to provide certainty to the parties, it is appropriate to rule on the motion without waiting for the response period to expire.
The short delay in the filing of appellants’ reply brief will not significantly affect processing of the appeal or prejudice respondent.
Because appellants have submitted a conforming reply brief and this appeal can proceed, we will accept the late brief.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Order - Grant Extension of Time - Respondent Brief Due 1/30/25

Document Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. Baker Tilly US, LLP, Respondent., A24-1389, 1354223 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2024)
On December 11, 2024, appellants served and filed a brief and addendum.
A declaration from respondent’s counsel filed with the motion indicates that respondent needs additional time to complete the brief because of counsel’s “previously scheduled personal travel from December 22, 2024 to January 2, 2025 and January 10, 2025 to January 22, 2025,” the holiday season, and counsel’s
The declaration states that appellants’ counsel does not object to the requested extension.
Respondent’s motion for an extension to file a brief is granted.
Respondent’s brief shall be served and filed by January 30, 2025.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Order - Grant-Atty. Stanley Parzen is Admitted Pro Hac Vice o/b/o Respondent

Document Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. Baker Tilly US, LLP, Respondent., A24-1389, 1339631 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2024)
Minnesota counsel for respondent Baker Tilly US LLP moves to admit attorney Stanley J. Parzen of Illinois, pro hac vice.
The motion addresses the relevant criteria.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Attorney Stanley J. Parzen is admitted pro hac vice and authorized to appear before this court in connection with appeal A24-1389.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Order - Grant-Atty. Daniel Bernard Centner is Admitted Pro Hoc Vice is Admitted o/b/o Appellant.

Document Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. Baker Tilly US, LLP, Respondent., A24-1389, 1339714 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2024)
Minnesota counsel for appellants Chris Beck, et al., moves to admit attorney Daniel Bernard Centner of Louisiana, pro hac vice.
The motion addresses the relevant criteria.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Attorney Daniel Bernard Centner is admitted pro hac vice and authorized to appear before this court in connection with appeal A24-1389.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion - Pro Hac Vice Atty Scodro o/b/o Respondent Baker Tilly

Document Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. Baker Tilly US, LLP, Respondent., A24-1389, 1367013 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2025)
I, Michael Rowe, an active member in good standing of the bar of the state of Minnesota, move this Court pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.
App. P. 143.05 to admit pro hac vice, Michael A. Scodro, an attorney admitted to practice in the trial court of the state of Illinois, but not admitted to the bar of this Court, who will be counsel for Respondent Baker Tilly US LLP (“Respondent”) in the above captioned matter.
Attached to this Motion is an affidavit as required by Minnesota Court Rule of Appellate Procedure 143.05 Subdivision 1.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion - Accept Late Filings - Appellant's Reply Brief

Document Eugene and Sandra Alexander, et al., Plaintiffs, Chris Beck, et al., Appellants, vs. Baker Tilly US, LLP, Respondent., A24-1389, 1364488 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2025)
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure 126.02, 127, and 131.02, a party may apply for an extension of time in which to file a brief for good cause shown.
Consistent therewith, Appellants Chris Beck, et al. (“Appellants”) respectfully move for an Order to accept the late filing of Appellants’ Reply Brief and in support thereof state the following: Appellants timely filed their Reply Brief on February 13, 2025 at approximately 10:48 pm via the Court’s E-MACS system using the account of counsel of record Daniel B. Centner (admitted pro hac vice).
On February 14, 2025, Appellants received an E-MACS filing rejection notice due to the signature on the document not correlating with the E-Filer account.
The clerk further directed Appellants to submit a motion to accept the late filing of the Reply Brief.
Counsel for Appellants therefore respectfully request that the Court accept as timely the late Appellants’ Brief filed contemporaneously with this Motion.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 >>