LUDY v. THE AES CORPORATION
MIESHA ESCHELLE LUDY |
THE AES CORPORATION |
1:2023cv01863 |
October 16, 2023 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Mark J Dinsmore |
James Patrick Hanlon |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 9 FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 58 - Having this day directed the entry of final judgment, the Court now enters FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 12/6/2023. Copy to Plaintiff via US mail. (JSR) |
Filing 8 ORDER DISMISSING CASE - Ms. Ludy has not amended her complaint to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Ludy's case and all claims therein are therefore DISMISSED without prejudice based on the reasons outlined in the screening order. Final judgment shall issue by separate entry. (See Order.) Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 12/6/2023. Copy to Plaintiff via US mail. (JSR) |
Filing 7 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT - The complaint as it was filed does not establish subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Ludy shall have through November 30, 2023 to file an amended complaint that addresses the issues identified in this order and sets forth a basis for this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. If Ms. Ludy does not respond, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Order.) Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/20/2023. Copy to Plaintiff via US mail. (JSR) |
Filing 6 ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis - Ms. Ludy's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #2 , is GRANTED. While in forma pauperis status allows Ms. Ludy to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, she remains liable for the full fees. No payment is due at this time. SEE ORDER. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/20/2023. (AAS) |
Filing 5 Submission of Signature Requirement re #1 Complaint by MIESHA ESCHELLE LUDY. (LBT) |
Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (CCG) |
Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (CCG) |
Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff MIESHA ESCHELLE LUDY. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(CCG) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against THE AES CORPORATION, filed by MIESHA ESCHELLE LUDY. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Proposed Summons, #4 Envelope)(CCG) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: LUDY v. THE AES CORPORATION | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: MIESHA ESCHELLE LUDY | |
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: THE AES CORPORATION | |
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.