edinburg v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: rhonda edinburg
Defendant: Target Corporation
Case Number: 0:2019cv62870
Filed: November 19, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Presiding Judge: Federico A Moreno
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 10, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 10, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Raag Singhal recused. Case reassigned back to Judge Federico A. Moreno for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 1/10/2020. See attached document for full details. (bms)
January 7, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 1/6/2020. See attached document for full details. (yar)
January 7, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE to Judge Raag Singhal for all further proceedings, Judge Federico A. Moreno no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 1/6/2020. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
December 11, 2019 Filing 5 STATUS REPORT FOR REMOVAL by Target Corporation (Pariti, Megan)
December 2, 2019 Filing 4 Joint Notice and Consent to Jurisdiction US Magistrate Judge as to Discovery only signed by all parties . Filed by Target Corporation (Pariti, Megan) Modified on 12/10/2019 (ra).
November 26, 2019 Filing 3 NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE IN REMOVAL CASES. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 11/25/2019. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
November 19, 2019 Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Federico A. Moreno. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (amb)
November 19, 2019 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT - Rhonda Edinburg v. Target Corporation) Filing fee $400.00. Pay.gov Agency Tracking ID 113C-12161099, payment transferred from : 19CV62869 Rhonda Edinburg vs. Target Corporation, filed by Target Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Complaint, #3 Exhibit Affidavit of Thomas Paradise, Esquire, #4 Exhibit Affidavit of Daniel Moore, #5 Exhibit Plaintiff's Redacted Demand, #6 Exhibit State Court Docket)(Pariti, Megan)

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 Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: edinburg v. Target Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: rhonda edinburg
Represented By: Michael William Wallace
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: Target Corporation
Represented By: Thomas Walter Paradise
Represented By: Megan Ann Pariti
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.


Why Is My Information Online?