4:26-cv-02203 Tyree v. Dorfman et al
Case Summary
This entry duplicates the case Tyree v. Dorfman et al, again noting a consent or declination to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. The procedural posture remains consistent with federal civil litigation practices.
Stage
Active litigation
Timeline
3 events
Coverage
3 articles
Sources
1
Key Issues
- • Consent to magistrate jurisdiction
- • Case management
- • Federal civil procedure
Case Timeline
3 events4:26-cv-02203 Tyree v. Dorfman et al
In the case Tyree v. Dorfman et al, the parties were given the option to consent or decline to have their case heard by a U.S. Magistrate Judge instead of a District Judge. This step is important because it determines who will preside over the case, potentially affecting the timeline and handling of the proceedings.
1:24-cv-11366 Payne et al v. Dorn et al
In the case Tyree v. Dorfman et al, the court granted permission to file a document related to another case, Payne et al v. Dorn et al. This procedural step allows the parties to submit important information or evidence that may impact the proceedings. It matters because it ensures that the court has all relevant materials to make informed decisions.
1:26-cv-02203 Marquez v. Samarpan, Inc. et al
In the case Tyree v. Dorfman et al, the court issued an order regarding a request to extend the deadline for filing an answer in a related case, Marquez v. Samarpan, Inc. et al. This means the court granted more time for the defendants to respond to the complaint, allowing them additional time to prepare their defense. This helps ensure that the defendants have a fair opportunity to present their side before the case proceeds.
Press Coverage
4:26-cv-02203 Tyree v. Dorfman et al
Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge ( 6
1:24-cv-11366 Payne et al v. Dorn et al
Leave to File Document ( 159
1:26-cv-02203 Marquez v. Samarpan, Inc. et al
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer ( 10