Williams v. Great Expressions Dental Centers
| Jacqueline Williams |
| Great Expressions Dental Centers |
| 2:2023cv11386 |
| June 9, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| David R. Grand |
| Jonathan JC Grey |
| Curtis Ivy |
| Linda V Parker |
| Personal Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 31, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Notice to Parties Regarding Consolidated Case: Order of consolidation entered on *7/31/2023*. Designated lead case number is *23-11185*. (TTho) |
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES (ECF No. 9); ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE Nos. 23-11185, 23-11220, 23-11223, 23-11386; and ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE Nos. 23-11220, 23-11223, 23-11386 Signed by District Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey. (TTho)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE from District Judge Linda V. Parker and Magistrate Judge David R. Grand to District Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey and Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. (SSch)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael P. Hindelang on behalf of Great Expressions Dental Centers. (Hindelang, Michael) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Jad Sheikali on behalf of Great Expressions Dental Centers. (Sheikali, Jad) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Jacqueline Williams. (Shamis, Andrew) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Great Expressions Dental Centers served on 6/29/2023, answer due 7/20/2023. (Shamis, Andrew) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Issued for *Great Expressions Dental Centers* (SKra) |
| 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 (SKra) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Jacqueline Williams against Great Expressions Dental Centers with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-9380311 - Fee: $ 402. County of 1st Plaintiff: Denton County, Texas - County Where Action Arose: Out of State - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne County, Michigan. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons) (Shamis, Andrew) |
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
| Search for this case: Williams v. Great Expressions Dental Centers | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jacqueline Williams | |
| Represented By: | Andrew Shamis |
| 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: Great Expressions Dental Centers | |
| Represented By: | Jad Sheikali |
| Represented By: | Michael P. Hindelang |
| 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.
