Cartee v. Sanofi US Services Inc. et al
| Arthur Cartee |
| Chattem, Inc., Sanofi S.A., Sanofi US Services Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |
| 1:2020cv01643 |
| March 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Gary Feinerman |
| Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 12, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| ELECTRONIC Acknowledgment of case transferred to the Central District of Illinois as case 20 cv 4059, filed 3/12/20. (las, ) |
| Filing 7 TRANSFERRED to the USDC Central District of Illinois, the electronic record (ec, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:The complaint alleges that "[v]enue is proper because Plaintiff resides in Knox County, and it is the county in which Plaintiff purchased the subject medication and where he was injured." Doc. 1 at 2. However, Knox County is in the Central District of Illinois, not in this District. See 28 U.S.C. 93(b). Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), this case is transferred to the Central District of Illinois. The Clerk shall effectuate the transfer forthwith. The status hearing set for 3/30/2020 #4 is stricken. Civil case transferred.Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 5 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. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing, by 3/23/2020, why this case should not be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint premises subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), but it does not properly allege the citizenship of Plaintiff or of Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC. Plaintiff may show cause by filing a Jurisdictional Addendum that properly alleges the citizenship of all parties. Failure to comply will result in the dismiss of this case for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Status hearing set for 3/30/2020 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Arthur Cartee by Timothy Jackson (Jackson, Timothy) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Arthur Cartee by Edward A. Wallace (Wallace, Edward) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Arthur Cartee; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16804295. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Wallace, Edward) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Gary Feinerman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Case assignment: Random assignment. (dxb, ) |
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
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.
