Hemker et al v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC et al
| Judith Hemker and James Hemker |
| Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Syngenta AG and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC |
| 3:2021cv00211 |
| February 23, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 24, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER GRANTING #10 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading. Defendant Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and Syngenta AG shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint on or before May 3, 2021. Responses due by 5/3/2021. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/24/2021. (mlp) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Complaint by Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC. (Nester, Michael) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Nester on behalf of Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC (Nester, Michael) |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. waiver sent on 3/1/2021, answer due 4/30/2021. (Tillery, Stephen) |
| Filing 7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Syngenta AG waiver sent on 2/26/2021, answer due 4/27/2021; Syngenta Crop Protection LLC waiver sent on 2/26/2021, answer due 4/27/2021. (Tillery, Stephen) |
| Filing 6 Case Reassigned to Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty no longer assigned to the case. (ack) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: This matter comes before the Court for case management. Chief District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel is presiding over Kearns v. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, Case No. 21-cv-278-NJR ("Kearns"). The instant action involves the same issues and the same Defendants as Kearns. Cognizant of the Seventh Circuit's position that related cases filed within the same U.S. District Court should be transferred to a single District Judge, see Smith v. Check-N-Go of Illinois, 200 F.3d 511, 513, n. 1 (7th Cir. 1999); Blair v. Equifax Check Serv., 181 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 1999), and having consulted with Chief Judge Rosenstengel, the undersigned Judge TRANSFERS this case to Chief Judge Rosenstengel for further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 3/18/2021. (klh2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE: James & Judith Hemker were directed to file the attached form regarding consenting or declining to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The time for doing so has now passed, and the Court has not received the form. As required by Administrative Order No. 257, James & Judith Hemker shall return the form within 7 days or face possible sanctions. The Clerk notes that due to the COVID-19 public health crisis, deadlines that were pending on or before April 1, 2020 were extended in accord with Administrative Order No. 261 and/or Amended Administrative Order No. 261. This automated notice does not take into account any such extensions. If, after the expiration of the 7-day deadline set forth herein, the Court chooses to take further action, all applicable deadline extensions will be considered at that time. Consent due by 3/25/2021 (trb)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This case has been randomly assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257. The parties are advised that their consent is required if the assigned Magistrate Judge is to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including trial and final entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. As set forth in Administrative Order No. 257, each party will be required to file a Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form indicating consent or nonconsent to the jurisdiction of the assigned Magistrate Judge. If all parties do not consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction, the case will be randomly assigned to a district judge for all further proceedings and the parties cannot later consent to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge. The parties are further advised that they are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences. Within 21 days of this Notice, the following party or parties must file the attached form indicating consent to proceed before the assigned Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent: All Plaintiffs. A link regarding the magistrate judges in this district is attached for your convenience: #http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/BenefitsofConsent.pdf. All future documents must bear case number 21-211-MAB. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. Consent due by 3/17/2021 (trb) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen M. Tillery on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Tillery, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0754-4410468.), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Tillery, Stephen) |
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 Southern 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.
