Noe v. JUUL Labs, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Frederick Noe
Defendant: JUUL Labs, Inc. and PAX Labs, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2019cv01042
Filed: December 11, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Presiding Judge: Phillip J Green
Referring Judge: Janet T Neff
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 8, 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENT from Northern District of California, of receipt of WDMI transfer case, assigning case number 3:20-cv-00148 (jlg)
January 7, 2020 CASE ELECTRONICALLY TRANSFERRED to Northern District of California (mg)
January 2, 2020 Filing 6 CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; certified copy received from Northern District of California; case transferred to Northern District of California under MDL No. 2913, JUUL Labs, Inc, Marketing, Sales Pracites, and Products Liability Litigation (mg)
January 2, 2020 Filing 5 COPY of CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation directed to the Northern District of California regarding case to be transferred to the Multidistrict Litigation Panel under MDL No. 2913, JUUL Labs, Inc, Marketing, Sales Pracites, and Products Liability Litigation (mg)
January 2, 2020 Remark: As stipulated in Rule 7.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transmittal of the order has been stayed 7 days to give any party an opportunity to oppose the transfer.The 7-day period has now elapsed, no opposition was received, and the order is directed to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the N.D. California for filing. The Panel governing statute, 28 U.S.C. 1407, requires that the transferee clerk transmit a certified copy of the Panel order to transfer to the clerk of the district court from which the action is being transferred. Signed by Clerk of the Panel John W. Nichols on 1/2/2020. (mg)
December 12, 2019 Filing 4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to defendants JUUL Labs, Inc., PAX Labs, Inc. (mg)
December 12, 2019 Filing 3 NOTICE that this case has been assigned Janet T. Neff (mg)
December 11, 2019 Filing 2 PROPOSED SUMMONS to be issued re #1 (Ellis, Tiffany)
December 11, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against JUUL Labs, Inc., PAX Labs, Inc. filed by Frederick Noe (Ellis, Tiffany)
December 11, 2019 FILING FEE PAID re #1 by plaintiff Frederick Noe in the amount of $400, receipt number AMIWDC-4693212 (Ellis, Tiffany)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Noe v. JUUL Labs, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JUUL Labs, Inc.
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: PAX Labs, Inc.
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: Frederick Noe
Represented By: Tiffany Rose Ellis
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?