Parsons v. GC Services Limited Partnership et al
| Amber Parsons |
| GC Services Limited Partnership and ORG GC CP Buyer LLC |
| 2:2018cv00564 |
| April 9, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Southern Office |
| Jefferson |
| Abdul K Kallon |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Bradford W Botes on behalf of Amber Parsons (Botes, Bradford) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of David J. Philipps and Mary E. Philipps by Amber Parsons. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Consent of Local Counsel)(KBB) |
| Filing 2 Request for service by certified mail filed by Amber Parsons. (KBB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against GC Services Limited Partnership, ORG GC CP Buyer LLC, filed by Amber Parsons. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(KBB) |
| PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126-3063651. (Philipps, David) |
| PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126-3063646. (Philipps, David) |
| Filing Fee: Filing fee $ 400, receipt_number 1126-3063639. related document #1 COMPLAINT against GC Services Limited Partnership, ORG GC CP Buyer LLC, filed by Amber Parsons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(KBB). (Philipps, David) |
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 Northern 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.
