K.R. v. TARGET CORPORATION
Plaintiff: K. R., LAKESHA MOFFITT and ANDRE ROBINSON
Defendant: TARGET CORPORATION
Case Number: 1:2022cv02186
Filed: November 10, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Presiding Judge: Matthew P Brookman
Referring Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 5, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 12 NOTICE AND ORDER - On the Court's own motion, due to a scheduling conflict, the TELEPHONIC INITIAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE set for January 27, 2023, is hereby RESCHEDULED for FEBRUARY 7, 2023 at 11:00 a.m., Indianapolis time (EST), before the Honorable Matthew P. Brookman, United States Magistrate Judge. The information needed by counsel to participate in this telephonic conference will be provided by a separate notification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 01/05/2023.(AAS)
December 16, 2022 Filing 11 RESPONSE to #8 NOTICE (Amended), filed by Plaintiff K. R.. (Byron, Rom) Modified on 12/19/2022 - Updated dkt. text and linked to dkt. 8 (JSR).
November 28, 2022 Filing 10 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) with Jury Demand , filed by TARGET CORPORATION.(Zipes, Jeffrey)
November 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER SETTING INITIAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - The above case is hereby assigned for an INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE on January 27, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., Indianapolis Time (EST), TELEPHONIC, before the Honorable Matthew P. Brookman, United States Magistrate Judge. The information needed to participate in this telephonic conference will be provided by a separate notification. No fewer than seven (7) days before the IPTC, counsel must file a Proposed CMP. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 11/21/2022.(AAS)
November 18, 2022 Filing 8 NOTICE (Amended), filed by Defendant TARGET CORPORATION, re #1 Notice of Removal. (Attachments: #1 State Court Record (Complaint for Damages, Appearance Form (Civil), Summons, Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, E-Filing Appearance by Attorney in Civil Case, Return of Service, Order), #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Zipes, Jeffrey)
November 15, 2022 Filing 7 PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES before Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. (JSR)
November 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER - The Court ORDERS Defendant to file an Amended Notice of Removal by December 5, 2022, which addresses the issues outlined in this Order and properly alleges a basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to file a statement within thirty days of Defendant's filing of the Amended Notice of Removal pursuant to Local Rule 81-1. The parties are advised that, to the extent the Amended Notice of Removal and the Local Rule 81-1 Statement reflect anything other than total agreement regarding any jurisdictional allegations, the Court will require the parties to conduct whatever investigation is necessary and file a joint jurisdictional statement confirming that all parties are in agreement with the underlying jurisdictional allegations before the litigation moves forward. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/14/2022.(JSR)
November 14, 2022 Filing 5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH)
November 10, 2022 Filing 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by TARGET CORPORATION. (Zipes, Jeffrey)
November 10, 2022 Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S. Zipes on behalf of Defendant TARGET CORPORATION. (Zipes, Jeffrey)
November 10, 2022 Filing 2 RECEIPT #2502 for filing fee in the amount of $402.00, paid by counsel on behalf of TARGET CORPORATION via phone by credit card in the name of Jay Curts. (DJH)
November 10, 2022 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Marion Superior Court #2, case number 49D02-2210-CT-035320, filed by TARGET CORPORATION. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 State Court Record (Complaint for Damages, Appearance Form (Civil), Summons, Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, E-Filing Appearance by Attorney in Civil Case, Return of Service, Order), #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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: K.R. 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: K. R.
Represented By: Rom Byron
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 ]
Plaintiff: LAKESHA MOFFITT
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 ]
Plaintiff: ANDRE ROBINSON
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.


Why Is My Information Online?