Nicole Andrews v. Naftali Horowitz et al
Nicole Andrews |
Naftali Horowitz, Fastapp, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
8:2022cv00173 |
February 1, 2022 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Karen E Scott |
Stockholders Suits |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity - Stockholders Suits |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 7 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Nicole Andrews. Dismissal is without prejudice. (Jessee, Seth) |
Filing 6 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Fastapp, Inc., Naftali Horowitz. (ghap) |
Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge) (ghap) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Nicole Andrews, identifying Nicole Andrews; Naftali Horowitz; Fastapp Inc.. (Adams, Michael) |
Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Nicole Andrews. (Adams, Michael) |
Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Nicole Andrews. (Adams, Michael) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32722342 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Nicole Andrews. (Attorney Michael D Adams added to party Nicole Andrews(pty:pla))(Adams, Michael) |
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.