Fuentes v. Jackson et al
| Armando Fuentes and Jose Armando Fuentes |
| Joel Jackson, JA Jackson Enterprises, Inc., Falcon Transportation, LLC, Blue Diamond Transportation, LLC and Pine State Carriers, Inc. |
| 3:2024cv00586 |
| February 28, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Gilbert C Sison |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Summons Issued as to Blue Diamond Transportation, LLC, Falcon Transportation, LLC, JA Jackson Enterprises, Inc., Joel Jackson, Pine State Carriers, Inc.. Originals mailed to counsel for service. (aca) |
| Filing 10 Summons Requested. (Davis, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 9 Summons Requested. (Davis, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 8 Summons Requested. (Davis, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 7 Summons Requested. (Davis, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 6 Summons Requested. (Davis, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 5 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (Davis, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE: Jose Armando Fuentes was 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 Nos. 347 and 367, Jose Armando Fuentes shall return the form within 7 days or face possible sanctions. Consent due by 4/2/2024 (aca) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This case has been randomly assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison pursuant to Administrative Orders 347 and 367. The parties are advised that their consent is required if the assigned Magistrate Judge is to conduct all further proceedings in this 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 Nos. 347 and 367, each party will be required to file a Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form indicating consent or non-consent 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: Armando Fuentes. A link regarding the magistrate judges in this district is attached for your convenience: #https://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/BenefitsofConsent.pdf. All future documents must bear case number 3:24-cv-586-GCS. Refer to Civil/Removal Case Processing Requirements, found on the ILSD website, for further service information. Consent due by 3/21/2024 (adh) |
| Filing 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 Disclosure Statement by All Plaintiffs. (Davis, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Order Appointing Special Administrator, #2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Davis, Nathaniel) |
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.
