Daniel Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp. et al
| Daniel Kauffman |
| Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng and Timothy S. Davidson |
| 2:2019cv00163 |
| January 8, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Jean P Rosenbluth |
| Securities/Commodities |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Timothy S. Davidson, Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng. (ghap) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (ghap) |
| Filing 4 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Daniel Kauffman, (Rosen, Laurence) |
| Filing 3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Daniel Kauffman. (Rosen, Laurence) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Daniel Kauffman. (Rosen, Laurence) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-23008125 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Daniel Kauffman. (Attachments: #1 PSLRA Certification) (Attorney Laurence M Rosen added to party Daniel Kauffman(pty:pla))(Rosen, Laurence) |
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 California Central 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.
