alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adam Tran,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00535-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Karon & Dalimonte, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 3/2/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 956 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 956 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Judy A. Hill,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04107-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8990 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS FINANCE CORP. BALANCE SHEET ON JULY 31, 1997, AND
THE STATEMENT OF EARNINGS ENDING JULY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS)
</LEGEND>
       
<CAPTION>


<CIK>                               0001012493
<NAME>                        FERRELLGAS PARTNERS FINANCE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,000
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (285)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (285)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


<FN>
1.  For the Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. has no income statement items in
this schedule other than totals as their only costs are G&A, and such costs are
not required in the Financial Data Schedule.
</FN>
        


        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40478

Summary Calendar

NATH CROCKETT WOMACK

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Nath Crockett Womack, Texas prisoner # 803963,

was convicted of murder and was sentenced to serve life in prison. Initially,

Womack did not file a petition for discretionary review (PDR) with respect to this

judgment, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later granted him

authorization to proceed with an out-of-time PDR. 

The instant appeal arises from the district court’s denial of Womack’s

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. This denial was grounded

in the district court’s determination that Womack’s out-of-time PDR did not toll

the period for filing his § 2254 petition or otherwise affect the limitations period

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 21, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40478

2

found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Relying upon Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S. Ct.

681 (2009), Womack argues that this decision was incorrect and that the time

for filing his § 2254 petition began to run after the conclusion of proceedings

related to his out-of-time PDR. The Respondent agrees that the district court

incorrectly dismissed Womack’s § 2254 petition as untimely in light of Jimenez

and requests that the judgment be vacated and the case remanded for further

proceedings.

This court conducts a de novo review of the district court’s determination

that Womack’s § 2254 petition was untimely. See Emerson v. Johnson, 243 F.3d

931, 932 (5th Cir. 2001). In Jimenez, the Court held that “where a state court

grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during

state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas

relief, his judgment is not yet ‘final’ for purposes of § 2244(d)(1)(A).” 129 S. Ct.

at 686. Consequently, the district court’s determination of untimeliness was

incorrect on the facts before us. Moreover, Womack’s petition complies with

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), insofar as it also raises reasonably

debatable claims of the denial of constitutional rights. See Jimenez, 129 S. Ct.

at 684 n.3 (emphasizing Slack’s requirement that, when a district court denies

a habeas petition on procedural grounds, an appellate court should grant a

Certificate of Appealability only if the prisoner shows that reasonable jurists

could debate both whether the petition states a valid claim of constitutional

violation and whether the district erred procedurally).

We VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further

proceedings consistent with Jimenez. We express no opinion on the ultimate

disposition of Womack’s § 2254 petition.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2005 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert H. Mullen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and



(2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



Dated: September 13, 2005



/s/ Robert H. MullenRobert H. MullenChief Executive Officer




This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  EPS HAS BEEN RESTATED FOR
SFAS 128.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         335,044
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  233,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                  2,370,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,939,309
<PP&E>                                         135,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,599,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          467,265
<BONDS>                                      2,756,084
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    105,750
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                     270,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,599,975
<SALES>                                        408,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               408,769
<CGS>                                           86,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  285,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,988
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,487
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,501
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES ARE REPORTED NET OF ALLOWANCES FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS ON THE
BALANCE SHEET
<F2>PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT IS REPORTED NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
ON THE BALANCE SHEET
</FN>



</TABLE>
,/?&jr3ay0s7 j y&ytrf yyrJ'y' £yZ?y7*y*?ry Sy*s ^tztrs

jTy? y&S ypfryyyy yz> y^/yyy yyyyAy ^yyyyy"ryy*y^j^ &&£<» /z&y

•/fiat/s&yr g&zs/'j&s y?y yyyiyyyy Ay?<^hy^^y Z

<Z*?tyy?y &y tryCyyipy/v&y jfyW&fyryr zyzrt&r

y*yyy*y*& &#*•*- SS*fr RECEIVED IN

^^»> w/ ss^s r- ^ y^f^ COURT OF CRIiVHNAL APPEALS

/",*,. yfy>y yyj?y?£ JAN 0 9 2015

^yy-yy> > X2JC0S- ytfyy/~jz?y?yf

Abel Acosta, Clerk

y?e?/?y ytfy y&z& <~r<erS

•y*y'<-<*yi~. St~y yAys- y<zrj&y*> ly?yyy d?yyy<?y*yy &y$^y<z<~

<#>< yy^yyy^ <?y jZa&fy^yy yyAyyy^y^

y?j y$4r/y<~ ^es^y? yAyy y& ^<m yymeery&yyisaS'y*0 7At?

tyy/y yftyyvy&y 0ydL £sy tsyryy-; y/y?y? y^ypy: yyy

S*S*r#Si~ s'izy?**/' yyyy y^yyyyA^y S^^^y yk?ry^ry&<***£'**s~ir

yz> yy^ yyyyyr^^y' ry'r^y y?*?s&f<!> yy^yyy y^%y>£>ey7 y7y<&yy

ry?y:^yyyy j-^^^ yyyyj>/sy>y?, yyy* Jy?tA*?, &jyyy*ry&.

y?y~Syyy*>Z y^yyy^^^y ^y* y^ y^^^^ yyy^^^

<***f sry>^ y,syy>s&y ^Sy,^ ,^^^ yyyy^ yy<yyy

£#umy?y? y?y<£yy y^yy^y^yy^sy ^^^/^yy/f^/^,

/Iteyy* yyyyyy^y yya^y^^ yy^/yyy^ y^y^y^yy^y^y y&szvy

y&y, y?y/y^<? y:^yky^^^tSSy yZyj^yy j ^tpyA y^y^yyy &y^

A^yyy' yy? yy*r s&y^y^y? xr^yy <&y yyyyy^ yyyy yyyyy<&y

yyyyy y^^^y^^ry^y y&y>yyiyfyyyy?sLy yAy yyyyyyfyyyyy&yyyyy

0Syysyayyyyyy yyyyxyyjy yy>yyyyyy^yyyy yy^yyyyyyy^ytryy

/?/is/syyyy y?yy yyyyyyyyjyy yy^-yssyyyiyyy yyyr-ry^cr yyy yyyypy

jOPAtyy *?y y^yy^yy'y s?styj> y&?y&?yy *?ysyyyj&&>y&&s?yty yfyyyyy

ytusyyzr &y?^yy&^^yyytyte y?y'yy>^y&y A?s<aa/ y*/<yy^rj>yy2?y

yya^y^ y*?yyy Acy/ps? ^Syy A-ya?4<y y*$zyy?yr~ yZryutszr yypyy^y>-hy^

Syf ytee?A &styyyyfiys$Kr#>y y?y<? yyk?y? yygyyyj-, y&>jry<zy&>y?s y>^^r

77fyfy, ^j *ery&r *fy?yAr# yy^y^yj^yZcyy yfeyryTay- ry yyyyyzyty^^

7%#yA' /^^ ~ /?/-~/or-?
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-1","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jIAZWQT0p8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-1\/\">STS-1<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-1\/embed\/#?secret=jIAZWQT0p8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-1” — NASA\" data-secret=\"jIAZWQT0p8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7354
ROGER D. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KEITH HESTER; W. V. RITCHIE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-717-CT-5-F) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger D. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Pletzke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Young v. Hester , No. CA-93-717-CT-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Andrew Pilch, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03980-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8604 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 1
No. 14,429.

#### Hunt, Guardian, et al. *v.*Williams.

Filed Jan. 13, 1891.

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

*J. Buchanan,*for appellants.

*R. R. Stephenson*and *W. R. Fertig,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This opinion, in which we all concur, was prepared for the court hy the late Judge Mitchell, and expresses the views and the judgment of the court.

The question upon which the merits of the controversy involved in this case must be determined are identical with those settled by the decision in *Hunt*v. *Williams, ante,*p. 493. Upon the authority of thatcase the judgment rendered in this case is affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 906 Certification of Chief Financial Officer

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the
Company), I, Ronald L. Blevins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |                       
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Ronald L. Blevins   |  |  |  | Date: November 2, 2007
|    |  | Ronald L. Blevins       |  |  |  |                       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Michelle H. Swann - 019819 

SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, P.C. 

3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 600 

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2658 

 Telephone: (602) 200-1287 

Fax: (602) 230-8985 

E-mail: minute-entries@soarizonalaw.com mswann@soarizonalaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Best Western International, Inc., an 

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SDV Hospitality and Resorts Corporation, 

an Illinois corporation; and Deepak Kant 

Vyas, a Missouri resident, 

 Defendants. 

No. 

SUMMONS 

TO: SDV Hospitality and Resorts Corporation, an Illinois corporation 

 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons 

on you (not counting the day you received it) – or 60 days if you are the United States or a 

United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the Plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint 

or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion 

must be served on the Plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address is: 

Case 2:15-cv-02159-JJT Document 2 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 2
1401523.doc -2-

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

 Michelle Swann 

 SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, P.C. 

 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 600 

 Phoenix, AZ 85012 

 (602) 200-1287 

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the 

relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the 

Court. 

DATE: ___________________________. 

 BRIAN D. KARTH 

 CLERK OF COURT 

 By________________________________ 

 Deputy Clerk’s Signature 

Case 2:15-cv-02159-JJT Document 2 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 2