Pryor v. Petsmart Incorporated
Aubrey Pryor |
Petsmart Incorporated |
2:2020cv01450 |
July 22, 2020 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Eileen S Willett |
Personal Injury: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 29, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 *SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Aubrey Pryor: Affidavit of Service re: Summons and Complaint upon PetSmart Incorporated on 9/23/2020 . (Piekarski, Christopher) *Modified to add party served, documents served and date of service on 9/30/2020 (REK). |
Filing 11 Summons Issued as to Petsmart Incorporated. (BAS). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
Filing 10 SUMMONS Submitted by Aubrey Pryor. (Piekarski, Christopher) |
Filing 9 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #6 Summons Submitted filed by Aubrey Pryor. Summons submitted for party not named in complaint. FOLLOW-UP ACTION REQUIRED: Please refile corrected document. Deficiency must be corrected within one business day of this notice. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) |
Filing 8 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) |
Filing 6 SUMMONS Submitted by Aubrey Pryor. (Piekarski, Christopher) |
Filing 5 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #1 Complaint filed by Aubrey Pryor. 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. (REK) |
Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Petsmart Incorporated. (REK). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-18499672. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Eileen S. Willett. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-20-01450-PHX-ESW. Magistrate Election form attached. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form) (REK) |
Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Aubrey Pryor. (submitted by Christopher Piekarski) (REK) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number 0970-18499672 filed by Aubrey Pryor. (submitted by Christopher Piekarski) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (REK) |
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
Search for this case: Pryor v. Petsmart Incorporated | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Petsmart Incorporated | |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Aubrey Pryor | |
Represented By: | Nathan James Brelsford |
Represented By: | Christopher J Piekarski |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.