Davis v. L'oreal USA, Inc. et al
| Jewel Davis |
| SoftSheen-Carson LLC,, L'oreal USA, Inc., House of Cheatham, Inc., Beauty Bell Enterprises, LLC, House of Cheatham, LLC., Luster Products, Inc., Godrej SON Holdings, Inc., Strength of Nature, LLC., AFAM Concept, Inc. doing business as JF Labs, Inc. and L'oreal USA Products, Inc. |
| 1:2024cv09908 |
| October 11, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Mary M Rowland |
| Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 MEMBER CASE OPENED from Northern District of Illinois; ( Davis v. L'oreal USA, Inc. et al / Direct file in ILND). In Re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3060 ) (jh, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jewel Davis by Darsey Lee Glean (Glean, Darsey) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Glean, Darsey) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Jewel Davis; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22590528.(Glean, Darsey) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sheila Finnegan. Case assignment: Direct assignment. (Civil Category Direct). (smb, ) |
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.
