Evans v. AFAM Concept, Inc. et al
| Shelby Evans |
| AFAM Concept, Inc. d/b/a JF Labs, Inc., Loreal USA, Inc., Loreal USA Products, Inc., Soft-Sheen Carson LLC, Luster Products, Inc.,, MCBride Research Laboratories, Inc., Namaste Laboratories LLC, Revlon Consumer Prodcuts Corporation, Revlon Group Holdings LLC, Revlon, Inc. and Strength of Nature, LLC |
| 1:2023cv09739 |
| September 12, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Mary M Rowland |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shelby Evans by Eviealle J. Dawkins (Dawkins, Eviealle) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Case assignment: Direct assignment. (td, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan. Case assignment: Direct assignment. (mgh, ) |
| MEMBER CASE OPENED from Northern District of Illinois; ( 1:23-cv-09739 Evans v. AFAM Concept, Inc. et al / Direct file in ILND). In Re: In RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3060 ) (nsf, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Shelby Evans; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-21049692. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Dawkins, Eviealle) |
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.
