Scholey v. Honeywell International Incorporated et al
| Todd Scholey |
| International Business Machines Corporation, Honeywell International Incorporated, CAE Incorporated, Unknown Parties, International Business Machines Corporation doing business as IBM and Honeywell International Incorporated doing business as Honeywell Aerospace |
| 2:2017cv01627 |
| May 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| John Z Boyle |
| Personal Injury: Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2017. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTY RE: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Pursuant to FRCiv 7.1 and LRCiv 7.1.1 the attached Corporate Disclosure Statement form must be filed by all nongovernmental corporate parties with their first appearance. A supplemental statement must be filed upon any change in the information. In addition, if not already filed, the Corporate Disclosure Statement should be filed within 14 days. Corporate Disclosure Statement Deadline set as to International Business Machines Corporation. (DXD) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and this case is subject to that pilot. The key features and deadlines are set forth in the attached Notice which includes General Order 17-08. Also attached is a checklist for use by the parties. All parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the General Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the General Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the attached documents (Notice to Parties, including General Order 17-08 and MIDP Checklist) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (DXD) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-14269871. This case has been assigned to the Honorable John Z Boyle. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-17-01627-PHX-JZB. Magistrate Election form attached. PLEASE NOTE: Plaintiff(s) and defendants that have already appeared in this case are required to return the attached Magistrate Election form, in paper, within FOURTEEN (14) days of this filing. Please read attached instructions. (Attachments: #1 Instructions) (DXD) |
| Filing 2 DEFENDANT'S DEMAND for Jury Trial by International Business Machines Corporation (submitted by Donn Alexander). (DXD) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV2017-000258. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-14269871 filed by International Business Machines Corporation (submitted by Donn Alexander). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A State Court Docs, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Civil Cover Sheet Supplemental) (DXD) |
| ***State Court record received on 5/26/17*** SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Todd Scholey: Certificate of Service re: Summons/Complaint upon International Business Machines Corporation upon CT Corporation on 4/28/17. ***Docketed in US District Court on 5/26/17 for case management purposes.*** (DXD) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. |
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 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.
