Chapman v. SurgePays, Inc. d/b/a Surge Logics
| Crystal Chapman |
| SurgePays, Inc. d/b/a Surge Logics |
| 1:2021cv04272 |
| August 11, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 227 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 11, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by October 25, 2021. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Crystal Chapman; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18553975. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Paronich, Anthony) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (crl, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant SurgePays, Inc. d/b/a Surge Logics (crl, ) |
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: Chapman v. SurgePays, Inc. d/b/a Surge Logics | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Crystal Chapman | |
| Represented By: | Anthony Paronich |
| 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: SurgePays, Inc. d/b/a Surge Logics | |
| 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.
