McFaull v. JUUL Labs, Inc. et al
| John McFaull |
| JUUL Labs, Inc. and PAX Labs, Inc. |
| 5:2019cv00378 |
| September 17, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Danny C Reeves |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 25, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Clerk's Note: re #12 Case Transferred to MDL. Case transferred to Northern District of California as case 3:19-cv-06923, filed 10/24/19. (GLD) |
| Clerk's Note: JPMDL information extracted re #12 Case Transferred to MDL and electronically transmitted to AO. (SKV) |
| Filing 12 CERTIFIED ORDER received from Northern District of California re: Case Transfer to the MDL Panel pursuant to CTO No. CTO-1 filed in MDL Case Number 2913 (GLD)cc: COR |
| Filing 11 INFORMATION COPY OF MDL CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER: MDL No. 2913. (GLD) |
| Clerk's Note: re #12 Case Transferred to MDL: Civil Case Extracted and electronically transferred to the ND of California. (MRS) |
| Filing 10 FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by PAX Labs, Inc.. (Murphy, Marc) |
| Filing 9 FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by JUUL Labs, Inc.. (Czernin, Felix) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY RE: FAILURE TO FILE FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURES to counsel of record, Felix M. Czernin. #6 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation to Stay Proceedings Pending JPML Ruling by JUUL Labs, Inc. has been filed by JUUL Labs, Inc. without the required Rule 7.1 Disclosure statement. Rule 7.1 Disclosures must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days. Failure to file the Disclosure Statement will cause the case to be submitted to the presiding judge for further action. cc: COR (GLD) |
Filing 7
ORDER: 1. Parties #6 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation to Stay Proceedings Pending JPML Ruling is GRANTED. 2. All proceedings and deadlines, including but not limited to requirements for defendants to move, answer or respond to Complaint shall be STAYED pending further Order of this Court following the decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on the pending Motion to Transfer Related Cases for Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings (MDL No. 2913, Dkt. No. 1). 3. In the event the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation does not transfer this case, parties shall promptly notify Court regarding outcome of MDL proceedings. 4. Plaintiff may dismiss its claim against any defendant during pendency of stay. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 9/27/2019.(GLD)cc: COR
|
| Filing 6 Proposed Agreed Order/Stipulation to Stay Proceedings Pending JPML Ruling by JUUL Labs, Inc.. (Czernin, Felix) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the #4 MOTION for Joseph G. Tekulve to Appear Pro Hac Vice is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 9/19/19.(GLD)cc: COR, Joseph G. Tekulve
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Joseph G. Tekulve to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John McFaull ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-4469091) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Affidavit of Joe Tekulve, #2 Exhibit B - Certificate of Good Standing, #3 Proposed Order)(Bonar, Barbara) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to All Defendants ; Summons issued and returned to counsel electronically (GLD) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $400; receipt number 0643-4466945), filed by John McFaull. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons -JUUL Labs, Inc., #3 Summons - PAX Labs, Inc.)(GLD) |
| Conflict Check run. (GLD) |
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
