PARK et al v. USA
| DONALD W. PARK and KATHLEEN A. PARK |
| USA |
| 1:2022cv01656 |
| November 7, 2022 |
| United States Federal Claims Court |
| Eric G Bruggink |
| Military Pay - Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1491 Tucker Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
GENERAL ORDER No. 2022-01 dated 9/12/2022 continuing the suspension of paper filing requirements in pro se cases: Consistent with this court's General Orders issued on 3/18/2020, 11/13/2020, 12/23/2020, and 3/3/2021, it is ordered that judges, special masters, the Clerk of Court, and counsel of record for the United States may file electronically in pro se cases using the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. Pro se litigants shall, absent extraordinary circumstances, submit all case filings via e-mail to ProSe_case_filings@cfc.uscourts.gov. Pro se litigants may, if feasible, receive notification by e-mail of all electronic filings by filing an E-Notification Consent Form, attached to the General Order. (vds) Service on parties made. Plaintiffs served via first class mail on 11.08.2022 (cam). Modified on 11/8/2022 (cam).
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Non-ECF Case. (vds) Plaintiffs served via first class mail on 11.08.2022 (cam). Modified on 11/8/2022 (cam). |
| Filing 2 Notice of Random Assignment Pursuant to Rule 40.1(a) to Judge Eric G. Bruggink. (vds) Plaintiffs served via first class mail on 11.08.2022 (cam). Modified on 11/8/2022 (cam). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against USA (NAV) (Filing fee $402, Receipt number CFC0000XXXXX) (Copy Served Electronically on Department of Justice), filed by DONALD W. PARK, KATHLEEN A. PARK. Answer due by 1/3/2023. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Supplement Mailing Envelope)(vds) |
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.
