Marshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
| Jeffrey Marshall |
| Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Metlife Services & Solutions LLC and International Buisiness Machines Corporation |
| 2:2019cv00686 |
| May 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| R David Proctor |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 29 U.S.C. § 1132 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Metlife Services & Solutions LLC. filed by Metlife Services & Solutions LLC (Miller, T) |
| Filing 14 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. filed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Miller, T) |
| Filing 13 Corporate Disclosure Statement by International Buisiness Machines Corporation. filed by International Buisiness Machines Corporation (Kimble, Cavender) |
Filing 12
INITIAL ORDER IN ERISA BENEFITS CASES. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/17/2019. (KAM)
|
| Filing 11 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Metlife Services & Solutions LLC, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.(Miller, T) |
| Filing 10 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by International Buisiness Machines Corporation.(Kimble, Cavender) |
|
Filing 9
TEXT ORDER-This case is before the court on the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings #8 filed by Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Defendant MetLife Services and Solutions, LLC. The Motion #8 is GRANTED. On or before June 17, 2019, Defendants SHALL file their responsive pleadings. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 5/31/2019. (KAM)
|
| Reset Deadlines: Metlife Services & Solutions LLC answer due 6/17/2019; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company answer due 6/17/2019. (KAM) |
| Filing 8 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading by Metlife Services & Solutions LLC, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. (Miller, T) |
|
Filing 7
TEXT ORDER; This matter is before the court on Defendant IBM's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. #6 The Motion #6 is GRANTED. IBM SHALL respond to the Complaint on or before June 17, 2019. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 5/24/2019. (JLC)
|
| Filing 6 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by International Buisiness Machines Corporation. (Kimble, Cavender) |
| Reset Deadlines: International Buisiness Machines Corporation Answer due on or before June 17, 2019. (JLC) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jeffrey Marshall. International Buisiness Machines Corporation served on 5/13/2019, answer due 6/3/2019; Metlife Services & Solutions LLC served on 5/13/2019, answer due 6/3/2019. (KAM,) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jeffrey Marshall. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company served on 5/10/2019, answer due 5/31/2019. (KAM) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to International Buisiness Machines Corporation, Metlife Services & Solutions LLC, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company mailed certified mail (KAM) |
| Filing 2 Request for service by certified mail filed by Jeffrey Marshall. (Williams, Miles) |
| Filing Fee received in the amount of $400.00, Credit Card receipt_number 1126-3340669, NDAL receipt #B4601097451. (Williams, Miles) Modified on 5/7/2019 (JLC). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against International Buisiness Machines Corporation, Metlife Services & Solutions LLC, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, filed by Jeffrey Marshall.(KAM) |
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.
