Chatman v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC
Jasmine Chatman |
Medical Business Bureau, LLC |
1:2019cv02497 |
April 12, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
John Z Lee |
Consumer Credit |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal, this case is dismissed without prejudice, with each side to bear its own fees and costs, after 45 days the dismissal will be with prejudice with each side to bear its own fees and costs. Civil case terminatedMailed notice (ca, ) |
Filing 12 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Chatman, Celetha) |
Filing 11 Notice of Settlement by Jasmine Chatman (Chatman, Celetha) |
Filing 10 NOTICE of Motion by Celetha Chatman for presentment of motion to strike #9 before Honorable John Z. Lee on 6/5/2019 at 09:00 AM. (Chatman, Celetha) |
Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Jasmine Chatman to strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses (Chatman, Celetha) |
Filing 8 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Medical Business Bureau, LLC (Malone, Robbie) |
Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint by Medical Business Bureau, LLC(Malone, Robbie) |
Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jasmine Chatman as to Medical Business Bureau, LLC on 4/18/2019, answer due 5/9/2019. (Chatman, Celetha) |
Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Initial status hearing set for 6/18/19 at 9:00 a.m. Judge Lee participates in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project ("Project"). The Project applies to all cases filed on or after June 1, 2017, excluding the following: (1) cases exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B), (2) actions brought by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision, regardless of whether an attorney is recruited, (3) actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, (4) patent cases governed by the Local Patent Rules, and (5) cases transferred for consolidated administration in the District by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("Exempt Cases").For all cases to which the Project applies, Judge Lee requires (1) each attorney appearing on behalf of Plaintiff(s) to file a "Certification by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations Under Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" form within 28 days after the filing of the Complaint and (2) each attorney appearing on behalf of Defendant(s) to file the certification form with the Answer. The parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing. The certification form and initial status report requirements are set forth in Judge Lee's standing order regarding the "Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" available on the Courts website. For all Exempt Cases, the parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing in accordance with the standing order governing "Initial Status Report in Cases Exempt from the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" also available on the Court's website. Mailed notice (ca, ) |
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Medical Business Bureau, LLC (mc, ) |
Filing 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (yap, ) |
Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jasmine Chatman by Celetha Chatman (Chatman, Celetha) |
Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jasmine Chatman by Michael Jacob Wood (Wood, Michael) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Jasmine Chatman; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-15711929. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit s A-D, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Wood, Michael) |
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Z. Lee. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan. Case assignment: Random assignment. (lma, ) |
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 Illinois Northern 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: Chatman v. Medical Business Bureau, LLC | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Jasmine Chatman | |
Represented By: | Michael Jacob Wood |
Represented By: | Celetha Chatman |
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: Medical Business Bureau, LLC | |
Represented By: | Robbie Malone |
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.