Frankel v. Aramark Business Facilities LLC et al
| Ivy Frankel |
| Aramark Services Incorporated and Unknown Parties |
| 2:2016cv03101 |
| September 14, 2016 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| James A Teilborg |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
103
ORDER denying 101 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. [See attached order for additional information.] Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 3/11/2019. (RMW)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER denying Defendants' 87 Motion to Strike. FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's 86 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's 89 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (See Order for details.) Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/9/2018. (MMO)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER granting Defendant's 67 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. See document for details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 7/16/2018. (ATD)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that by October 7, 2016, Defendant shall file a supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be remanded to state court. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/30/2016. (KAL)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona 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.
