Wollerman v. Silk Operating Company LLC
| Heidi Wollerman |
| Silk Operating Company LLC |
| 1:2022cv02169 |
| August 23, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Michael E Hegarty |
| Nina Y Wang |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Heidi Wollerman. Silk Operating Company LLC waiver sent on 10/12/2022, answer due 12/11/2022. (Sheehan, Spencer) |
Filing 9
Minute ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 26 August 2022. Proposed Scheduling Order due 10/26/2022. Scheduling Conference set for 11/2/2022 10:00 AM in Courtroom A 501 before Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. (cmadr, )
|
| Filing 8 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Corrected) against Silk Operating Company LLC, filed by Heidi Wollerman.(Sheehan, Spencer) Modified on 8/26/2022 to correct text (trvo, ). |
|
Filing 7
ORDER REFERRING CASE: This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty for non-dispositive matters. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, and (4) conduct a pretrial conference and enter a pretrial order. Court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the Magistrate Judge or on the request of the parties by motion, this court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. Counsel for the Parties and all counsel who may later enter an appearance shall review and familiarize themselves with the undersigned's Practice Standards, as well as the Practice Standards of the assigned Magistrate Judge. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 08/25/2022. Text Only Entry (nywlc2, )
|
|
Filing 6
MINUTE ORDER: This matter is before the court on the #5 Notice of Errata Regarding Complaint filed by Plaintiff, wherein she clarifies that the appropriate Defendant in this matter is Silk Operating Company LLC. Based on this representation, the Clerk of Court is directed strike the Complaint filed at [Doc. 1] and to amend the case caption to reflect that the Defendant in this matter is Silk Operating Company LLC, not The Coca-Cola Company. Further, because the error necessitating the refiling of the Complaint is typographical, the court will not construe the corrected Complaint as Plaintiff's one amendment as a matter of right under Rule 15. Plaintiff is thus ORDERED to file a corrected copy of the Complaint (as opposed to a First Amended Complaint) on or before 8/29/2022. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 08/25/2022. Text Only Entry (nywlc2, )
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE re 4 Minute Order,, Notice of Errata by Plaintiff Heidi Wollerman (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Corrected First Amended Complaint)(Sheehan, Spencer) |
|
Filing 4
MINUTE ORDER: This matter is before the Court upon review of the #1 Class Action Complaint. The Complaint's caption names The Coca-Cola Company as the sole defendant in this case. However, the body of the Complaint, the Civil Cover Sheet, and summons name Silk Operating Company LLC as the sole defendant in this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before 8/26/2022, Plaintiff SHALL CLARIFY the intended defendant in this matter. By Judge Nina Y. Wang on 08/24/2022. Text Only Entry (nywlc2, )
|
| Filing 3 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). Summons submitted has incorrect caption and not issued. Please file completed summons for issuance using the event "Summons Request." (jtorr, ) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Judge Nina Y. Wang and drawn to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. Text Only Entry. (jtorr, ) |
| Filing 1 STRICKEN COMPLAINT against Silk Operating Company LLC (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number ACODC-8621778)Attorney Spencer Sheehan added to party Heidi Wollerman(pty:pla), filed by Heidi Wollerman. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons)(Sheehan, Spencer) Modified on 8/26/2022 to strike pursuant to 6 Minute Order (trvo, ). |
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 Colorado 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: Wollerman v. Silk Operating Company LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Heidi Wollerman | |
| Represented By: | Spencer Sheehan |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Silk Operating Company LLC | |
| 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.
