Smith et al v. Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd
Plaintiff: Robert Smith and Amber Smith
Defendant: Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd
Case Number: 6:2022cv00038
Filed: February 28, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Presiding Judge: Claria Horn Boom
Referring Judge: Hanly A Ingram
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 18, 2022 Filing 5 NOTICE by Amber Smith, Robert Smith (Gambrel, John)
February 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT AND REFERRAL ORDER: 1. At the outset, the Court reminds the parties that, under Rule 1, they share with the Court the duty to construe, administer, and employ the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action; 2. Pursuant to 28:636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Court refers this case to the appropriate United States Magistrate Judge for this Division; 3. Unless otherwise ordered, the Court retains for decision any motion dispositive of a claim or defense (as well as motions regulating the trial proof, including Daubert and motions in limine); 4. Concurrent with the filing of any Rule 12 motion, the moving party may file, as a separate motion, any request for a discovery stay pending resolution. The Court refers consideration of any such motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge; 5. Discovery Disputes shall be resolved as defined within this order; The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter this Standing Order in the undersigned's civil cases excepting Social Security, pro se, and prisoner post-conviction matters at case opening (or as the Court otherwise directs). Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 10/4/21.(JLC)cc: COR
February 28, 2022 Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd; Summons issued and returned to counsel electronically (Attachments: #1 Summons Shenzhen Geekvape Technology (Serve Clifton Slaten))(JLC)
February 28, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $402; receipt number AKYEDC-5202256), filed by Robert Smith, Amber Smith. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons Shenzhen Geekvape Technology (Serve: Hague Convention), #3 Summons Shenzhen Geekvape Technologies (Serve: Clifton Slaten))(JLC)
February 28, 2022 Conflict Check run. (JLC)

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 this case: Smith et al v. Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Smith
Represented By: John M. Gambrel
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: Amber Smith
Represented By: John M. Gambrel
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: Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd
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?