newspaper
1:26-cv-23066 TRIDENT TRUST COMPANY (SOUTH DAKOTA) INC et al v. MARTINEZ et al
Apr 30, 2026
1 min read
legal-news
SABETPOUR v. MARTINEZ et al
19-cv-10030
Advertisement
description
Case Summary
The court has allowed a third-party complaint to proceed in the case of Trident Trust Company (South Dakota) Inc et al v. Martinez et al. This means that the plaintiff, Trident Trust Company, can continue to pursue claims against the defendants, Martinez et al. The significance of this decision lies in the potential impact on the original case, Sabetpour v.
No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.
smart_toy
Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records.
How we verify our work.
Advertisement
Case Timeline
4 events
info
Other
April 30, 2026
1:26-cv-23066 TRIDENT TRUST COMPANY (SOUTH DAKOTA) INC et al v. MARTINEZ et al
The court has allowed a third-party complaint to proceed in the case of Trident Trust Company (South Dakota) Inc et al v. Martinez et al. This means that the plaintiff, Trident Trust Company, can continue to pursue claims against the defendants, Martinez et al. The significance of this decision lies in the potential impact on the original case, Sabetpour v.
info
Other
April 29, 2026
2:25-cv-01393 Burns v. Martinez et al
The court returned mail for the case SABETPOUR v. MARTINEZ et al, specifically for the docket entry 2:25-cv-01393 Burns v. Martinez et al. This indicates that the court was unable to deliver the mail to the intended recipient. The returned mail is likely related to a court filing or other official document.
info
Other
April 29, 2026
1:26-cv-04867 Bracey v. Martin et al
The court granted a motion to substitute Attorney Bracey as the new counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Bracey v. Martin et al. This change allows Bracey to take over the representation of the plaintiff, replacing the previous attorney. The substitution is likely due to the previous attorney's withdrawal or inability to continue representing the plaintiff.
info
Other
April 29, 2026
2:19-cv-10030 SABETPOUR v. MARTINEZ et al
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendants to produce certain documents. This decision means that the plaintiff will not be able to access the requested information. The ruling is significant because it sets a precedent for future cases involving similar document requests.
Advertisement
newspaper
4 articles
Press Coverage
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
4 outlets · 4 articles
Timeline events
4 records on file
Last updated
2 days, 12 hours ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.