McCaslin v. Target Corporation
| MARLENE MALOTT McCASLIN |
| Target Corporation |
| 3:2021cv00004 |
| January 4, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Jon E DeGuilio |
| Michael G Gotsch |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 3, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court now ADOPTS the parties discovery plan and establishes the following deadlines: The last date to amend the pleadings without leave of court as to plaintiff is 7/1/2021; as to defendant is 8/1/2021. The serving of reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) are due from plaintiff by 12/1/2021; and from defendant by 1/1/2022. The last date for the completion of ALL DISCOVERY is 3/1/2022. The last date to file any discovery-related nondispositive motion shall be 30 days prior to the discovery deadline. Parties shall name a mediator no later than 5/3/2021. The deadline for the parties to engage in mediation is 2/1/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 3/3/2021. (mrm)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE by Target Corporation of Service of Initial Disclosures (Zipes, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 9 AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Target Corporation re #7 Order Amended Notice of Removal (Zipes, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 8 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Zipes, Jeffrey) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: The Defendant is ORDERED to file an amended notice of removal, by 1/25/2021, that properly alleges the citizenship of each party to this action. Signed by Chief Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 1/11/2021.(lhc)
|
| Filing 6 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Target Corporation. (Zipes, Jeffrey) |
| **NEW CASE** Chief Judge Jon E DeGuilio and Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr added. (shk) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S Zipes on behalf of Target Corporation (Zipes, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0755-4441080.) from St. Joseph Superior Court #5, Cause No. 71D05-2006-CT-000218, filed by Target Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit State Court Record (E-Filing Appearance by Attorney in Civil Case, Complaint, Summons, E-Filing Appearance by Attorney in Civil Case, Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Order Granting Extension of Time, Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Appearance Form (Civil), Motion to Withdraw Appearance, Order on Motion to Withdraw Appearance, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Zipes, Jeffrey) |
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 Indiana 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: McCaslin v. Target Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: MARLENE MALOTT McCASLIN | |
| Represented By: | Daniel H Pfeifer |
| 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: Target Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Jeffrey S Zipes |
| 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.
