Dalton v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al
| Ashley Dalton |
| Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. |
| 5:2021cv12324 |
| October 1, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| David R. Grand |
| Judith E Levy |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 4, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 SUMMONS Issued for *Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.* (DAll) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Issued for *Merck & Co., Inc.* (DAll) |
| A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at #http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (DAll) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Ashley Dalton against Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. with Jury Demand. No summons requested. Receipt No: AMIEDC-8638410 - Fee: $ 402. County of 1st Plaintiff: Macomb County - County Where Action Arose: Macomb County - County of 1st Defendant: Sarasota County. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Loranger, Timothy) |
| REQUEST for SUMMONS for Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.. (Loranger, Timothy) |
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 Michigan 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.
