Robinson v. John Doe Corporation #1
| Cedric Robinson |
| John Doe Corporation #1, John Doe Corporation #2 and Credit Acceptance Corporation |
| 5:2018cv13303 |
| October 22, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Judith E Levy |
| Anthony P Patti |
| Contract: Other |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 1/7/2019 at 10:30 AM before District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur) |
| Filing 3 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Credit Acceptance Corporation. (King, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 STATEMENT of DISCLOSURE of CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS and FINANCIAL INTEREST by Credit Acceptance Corporation (King, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Credit Acceptance Corporation, John Doe Corporation #2 from 46th District Court, case number GC18-3635. Receipt No: 0645-6958582 - Fee: $ 400 [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (King, Stephen) |
| 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 (BGar) |
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.
