Shari Judy Kenefick v. Boston Scientific, Corporation
| Shari Judy-Kenefick |
| DOES 1 through 25 and Boston Scientific, Corporation |
| 8:2018cv02022 |
| November 13, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Karen E Scott |
| Josephine L Staton |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #7 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect document is attached to the docket entry. Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Civil Events - Other Filings - Miscellaneous - Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71). In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (es) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #6 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect document is attached to the docket entry. Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Civil Events - Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (es) |
| Filing 7 [Civil Cover Sheet] filed as COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid ($400 paid on 11/13/2018, receipt number 0973-22732554), filed by Plaintiff Shari Judy-Kenefick.(Nguyen, Sean) Modified on 11/16/2018 (es). |
| Filing 6 [Plaintiff's Notice of Interested Parties] filed as COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid ($400 paid on 11/13/2018, receipt number 0973-22732554), filed by Plaintiff Shari Judy-Kenefick.(Nguyen, Sean) Modified on 11/16/2018 (es). |
| Filing 5 INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON (tg) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: The Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)is missing or incomplete. All civil actions presented for filing must be accompanied by a completed Civil Cover Sheet. See Local Rule 3-1. Counsel must file a completed Civil Cover Sheet immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (jtil) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (jtil) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-22732554 - Fee: $400, filed by Shari Judy-Kenefick Shari Judy-Kenefick. (Attorney Sean T Nguyen added to party Shari Judy-Kenefick(pty:pla))(Nguyen, Sean) |
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.
