Williams v. Implus Footcare LLC
| Wes L Williams |
| Implus Footcare LLC |
| 2:2018cv04207 |
| October 8, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Nanette K Laughrey |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 29, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #6 motion to appear pro hac vice entered by Clerk of Court. Attorney David T. Ahlheim for Implus Footcare LLC allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney. Western District of Missouri Local Rule 5.1 requires documents to be filed electronically. If pro hac vice counsel has not already done so, counsel is directed to immediately register for a WDMO e-filing account for NextGen CM/ECF. This will enable counsel to electronically file documents and receive electronic notification of filings. Register for a WDMO e-filing account at #PACER. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Geiser, Angel)
|
| Filing 6 Motion to allow David T. Ahlheim to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $100 receipt number AMOWDC-6007816) filed by Yvette M Boutaugh on behalf of Implus Footcare LLC. (Boutaugh, Yvette) |
| Filing 5 RETURN OF WAIVER OF SERVICE filed by Implus Footcare LLC. Waiver sent to Implus Footcare LLC on 10/24/2018, answer due 12/24/2018. (Boutaugh, Yvette) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of appearance by Yvette M Boutaugh on behalf of Implus Footcare LLC (Attorney Yvette M Boutaugh added to party Implus Footcare LLC(pty:dft))(Boutaugh, Yvette) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER ON PRETRIAL PROCEDURES. Service must be obtained on all defendants within forty (40) days of the date of this Order unless otherwise authorized by the Court. Signed on 10/9/18 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes Mitra, Renea)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NOTICE AND MAP GENERAL ORDER CAREFULLY FOR IMPORTANT CHANGES, DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.Notice of MAP assignment to an outside mediator. (Attachments: #1 MAP General Order)(Lock, Tania) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Implus Footcare LLC filed by David L Marcus on behalf of Wes L Williams. Filing fee $400, receipt number AMOWDC-5974233. Service due by 1/7/2019 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Marcus, David) |
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 Western 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. Implus Footcare LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Implus Footcare LLC | |
| Represented By: | David T. Ahlheim |
| Represented By: | Yvette M Boutaugh |
| 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: Wes L Williams | |
| Represented By: | David L Marcus |
| 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.
