Norwood v. Arizona Department of Child Safety et al
| Sylvia Norwood |
| Unknown Parties, Arizona Department of Child Safety, David McKay, Goodyear, City of and Regan McCarthy |
| 2:2018cv04956 |
| December 31, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Dominic W Lanza |
| Personal Injury: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 15, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED sealing the Complaint (Doc. #1 ) and the Summons (Doc. #2 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file redacted versions of the Complaint and Summons. (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 1/3/19. (SLQ)
|
|
Filing 6
PRELIMINARY ORDER: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. That Plaintiff(s) must promptly serve a copy of this Order and its Attachments on Defendant(s) and file notice of service with the Clerk of Court; 2. That, unless the Court orders otherwise, on April 2, 2019, the Clerk of Court shall terminate without further notice any Defendant in this action that has not been served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3. That, unless the Court orders otherwise, the parties shall file with the Clerk of Court a notice of service of MIDP Responses, supplemental MIDP Responses, and production of ESI, rather than copies of the actual disclosures [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 1/3/19. (Attachments: #1 Notice - MIDP, #2 MIDP User Manual)(MAW)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #1 Complaint filed by Sylvia Norwood. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(c) - Documents shall be converted to PDF directly from a word processing program and per Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual must be text searchable. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAR) |
| 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. (BAR) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-16342937. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Dominic W Lanza. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV 18-04956-PHX-DWL. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (BAR) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Sylvia Norwood. (Smith, Quarracy) (BAR) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-16342937 filed by Sylvia Norwood. (Smith, Quarracy) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(BAR) |
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.
