Dalton v. The Dow Chemical Company et al
| Donald G. Dalton |
| The Dow Chemical Company, Bayer CropScience LP and Union Carbide Company |
| 2:2020cv00110 |
| February 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Irene C Berger |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 7, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER FOR ASSIGNMENT AND REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGES OF CIVIL ACTIONS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE IRENE C. BERGER ENTERED NOVEMBER 12, 2019. This matter referred to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn for Discovery. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (klc) |
| Filing 2 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Bayer CropScience LP, The Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide Company re: #1 Complaint. Summons returnable 21 days. Instructions to Counsel: This is your electronic summons. Please print as many copies of the Summons and Complaint as are necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See Proof of Service page of this Summons form for filing a return of service if required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). (Attachments: #1 Summons as to Carbide Corporation Company, #2 Summons as to Bayer CropScience LP) (ts) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing Fee $400.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7537568. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons as to Bayer, #3 Proposed Summons as to Union Carbide, #4 Proposed Summons as to Dow Chemical) (ts) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
