SearchSupport the SiteOur SponsorsLinks and SupportersCopyrightExcept where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
All copyright interests in the legal filings contained herein are expressly disclaimed. Documents, opinions, and comments provided on any Spamsuite.com page are for general information purposes only and are not intended to substitute for informed professional legal advice. Spamsuite.com expressly disclaims liability for any opinion expressed in comments. Spamsuite.com does not endorse any article comment. |
SkirvinORDER on Motion to Change VenueIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS E360 Insight v. Ferguson, et al. ORDER The matter coming to be heard on Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, due notice having been given and the Court being advised of the premise, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Plaintiffs shall have 21 days, or until August 10, 2007, to file and serve upon the Defendant its Response to the Motion to Transfer Venue. 2. The Defendant shall have 14 days, or until August 24, 2007, to file and serve upon the Plaintiff his Reply. Motion to Change VenueThis should be a copy of a motion to change venue. Ferguson's Reply to e360's ResponseIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS E360INSIGHT, LLC, an Illinois Limited v. MARK JAMES FERGUSON, an individual, REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Response to Motion to DismissThis is e360's Response to Ferguson's Motion to Dismiss
Saecker's Reply to e360's ResponseThis is Robert Saecker's Reply to e360's Response to his motion to dismiss. The tone of this summed up in the following quote from the Conclusion: "Plaintiffs rely upon a fringe minority opinion from a foreign jurisdiction and wrap that unusual piece of jurisprudence with incomplete and inaccurate positions of Illinois case law to bolster their argument that Illinois can assert personal jurisdiction over Saecker."
Response to Motion to DismissThis is e360's Response to Saecker's Motion to Dismiss
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Saecker)This is Robert Saecker's motion to dismiss. Like Ferguson's it alleges insufficient contacts with Illinois.
Affidavit of Mark Ferguson in Support of the Motion to DismissIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS E360INSIGHT, LLC, an Illinois Limited v. MARK JAMES FERGUSON, an individual, DECLARATION I Mark James Ferguson declare and state:
MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Ferguson)08/09/2007 - 00:00 08/09/2007 - 23:59 US/Central IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS E360INSIGHT, LLC, an Illinois Limited Plaintiffs, v. MARK JAMES FERGUSON, an individual, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 2-619 AND 735 ILCS 2-613
e360Insight LLC, et al. v. Ferguson, et al. (II) [DISMISSED]On May 14, 2007, e360Insight LLC and David Linhardt filed a state court action in Cook County Circuit Court (Civil Division) against Mark Ferguson, Susan Wilson (a/k/a Susan Gunn), Rob Saecker (a/k/a Fudo), Rich Tietjens (a/k/a Morely Dotes), William Silverstein, and Tim Skirvin (a/k/a Screwtape III). Your faithful scribe had been watching Cook County Circuit Court (Chancery Division) instead, and so we apologize for the delay in getting this case to you. |
Upcoming DatesNavigationUser login |
Recent comments
6 days 13 hours ago
3 weeks 6 days ago
4 weeks 6 days ago
6 weeks 2 days ago
6 weeks 3 days ago
7 weeks 30 min ago
7 weeks 6 days ago
8 weeks 6 days ago
10 weeks 4 days ago
10 weeks 5 days ago