Foulger et al v. Avertest, LLC
| Katarzyna Foulger and John Doe |
| Avertest, LLC d/b/a Averhealth and Avertest, LLC doing business as Averhealth |
| 4:2022cv00878 |
| August 22, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Sarah E Pitlyk |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk. All non-governmental organizational parties (corporations, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships) must file Disclosure of Organizational Interests Certificate # (moed-0001.pdf). (JDC) |
| ***REMARK Attorney contacted via email 8/23/2022 at 8:37 AM and directed to file Notice of Process Server. Return call from attorney I was advised they were looking to waive service. Directed to file Waiver of Service. Neither was received. No summons issued at this time. (JDC) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against defendant Avertest, LLC d/b/a Averhealth with receipt number AMOEDC-9465957, in the amount of $402 Jury Demand,, filed by Katarzyna Foulger, John Doe. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Original Filing Form Original Filing Form, #5 Summons Summons)(Cornfeld, Richard) |
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 Missouri 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.
