McSween v. Davol, Inc. et al
| Daniel McSween |
| Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. |
| 1:2018cv00713 |
| August 2, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Dothan Office |
| Houston |
| Susan Russ Walker |
| Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 5, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Received certified copy of Conditional Transfer Order entered on 9/5/2018 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferring this action to USDC for the Southern District of Ohio. (dmn, ) |
| Case transferred electronically to Southern District of Ohio via CM/ECF transfer to Clerk. (dmn, ) (No pdf attached.) Modified on 9/5/2018, case opened in USDC/SDOH as case 2:18-cv-00995. (dmn, ) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge sent to counsel for Daniel McSween (kh, ) |
| Filing 2 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Daniel McSween. (kh, ) |
| Filing 1 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT against C.R. Bard, Inc., Davol, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 4602050192.), filed by Daniel McSween. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Filing Fee Receipt)(kh, ) |
| DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Daniel McSween. (no pdf document attached to this entry - see docket entry #1 for pdf)(kh, ) |
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.
Access this case on the Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- 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.
