Stacey Edkins v. Boston Scientific Corporation
| STACEY EDKINS |
| Boston Scientific Corporation |
| 2:2021cv01075 |
| February 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Maria A Audero |
| Fernando M Olguin |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 19, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. This matter has been assigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Court refers counsel to the Court's Initial Standing Order found on the Court's Website under Judge Olguin's Procedures and Schedules. Please read this Order carefully. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Nate Searcy on behalf of Plaintiff. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (et) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. (et) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE Proposed Summons filed by Plaintiff STACEY EDKINS. (Lopez, Matthew) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff STACEY EDKINS, (Lopez, Matthew) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff STACEY EDKINS. (Lopez, Matthew) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-30423726 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff STACEY EDKINS. (Attorney Matthew Ramon Lopez added to party STACEY EDKINS(pty:pla))(Lopez, Matthew) |
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
| Search for this case: Stacey Edkins v. Boston Scientific Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Boston Scientific Corporation | |
| 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: STACEY EDKINS | |
| Represented By: | Matthew Ramon Lopez |
| Represented By: | Matthew Lopez |
| Represented By: | Ramon R Lopez |
| 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.
