Armstrong v. General Motors LLC et al
| John Armstrong |
| Isuzu Motors Limited and General Motors LLC |
| 2:2020cv00284 |
| February 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Douglas L Rayes |
| Personal Injury: Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 17, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) filed by Plaintiff John Armstrong. (Shumway, G) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) filed by Defendant General Motors LLC. (Fischer, C) |
| Filing 10 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by John Armstrong: Proof of Service re: Summons upon General Motors on 02/11/20. (Shumway, G) |
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 5/12/2020 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 606, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Douglas L Rayes. The parties are directed to meet and confer at least 14 days before the Scheduling Conference as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). (See Order for details.) Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 3/4/2020. (MMO)
|
| Filing 8 Corporate Disclosure Statement by General Motors LLC. (Fischer, C) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to #1 Complaint with Jury Demand by General Motors LLC.(Fischer, C) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. The parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff(s) serve a copy of this Order upon Defendant(s) and file a notice of service. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/7/2020. (MMO)
|
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to General Motors LLC, Isuzu Motors Limited. (Attachments: #1 Summons)(ARC). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
| 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. (ARC) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-17926938. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-20-284-PHX-DLR. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (ARC) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by John Armstrong. (Shumway, G) (Attachments: #1 Summons)(ARC) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-17926938 filed by John Armstrong. (Shumway, G) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ARC) |
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.
