Howell v. Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc.
| Ethan Howell |
| Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc. |
| 4:2019cv40139 |
| October 28, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| David H Hennessy |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 CONSENT by all parties to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Ethan Howell.. (Korth, Sebastian) |
| Filing 6 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Notification forms indicating whether or not a party has consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge have not been received in the Clerk's Office. The submission of the form is mandatory. Completed forms shall be filed promptly. Additional forms can be obtained on the Court's web page at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov. NOTICE of Status Conference (King, Dawn) |
| Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc..(Salpoglou, Efpraxia) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc. served on 11/5/2019, answer due 11/26/2019. (Korth, Sebastian) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc.. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Jones, Sherry) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Jones, Sherry) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc. Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101-7943480 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Ethan Howell. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Case Category Sheet)(Korth, Sebastian) |
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 Massachusetts 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: Howell v. Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Rte. 2. Hyundai, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Efpraxia P. Salpoglou |
| 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: Ethan Howell | |
| Represented By: | Sebastian N. Korth |
| 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.
