Smith v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
Randigale Smith |
Aetna Life Insurance Company |
1:2019cv22997 |
July 19, 2019 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
Jose E Martinez |
Alicia M Otazo-Reyes |
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
29 U.S.C. § 1132 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 13, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement by Aetna Life Insurance Company identifying Corporate Parent CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Corporate Parent CVS Health Corporation, Corporate Parent Aetna Inc., Other Affiliate Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company for Aetna Life Insurance Company (Jacobson, Jeannine) |
Filing 11 Defendant's ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Aetna Life Insurance Company. (Jacobson, Jeannine) |
|
Filing 9 Joint Notice and NON-CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge . Filed by Randigale Smith (Alters, Rachel) |
Filing 8 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 16.1 by Randigale Smith (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Alters, Rachel) |
Filing 7 Certificate of Other Affiliates by Randigale Smith (Alters, Rachel) |
Set/Reset Answer Due Deadline: Aetna Life Insurance Company response due 9/16/2019. per DE 6 (cbr) |
|
Filing 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Complaint, by Aetna Life Insurance Company. Attorney Jeannine Cline Jacobson added to party Aetna Life Insurance Company(pty:dft). (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jacobson, Jeannine) |
|
Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Aetna Life Insurance Company. (mee) |
Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Jose E. Martinez. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes 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. (mee) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Randigale Smith against Aetna Life Insurance Company. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number 113C-11828353, filed by Randigale Smith. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s), #3 Exhibit LTD Policy)(Alters, Rachel) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Smith v. Aetna Life Insurance Company | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Aetna Life Insurance Company | |
Represented By: | Jeannine Cline Jacobson |
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 ] |
Plaintiff: Randigale Smith | |
Represented By: | Rachel Alters |
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.