Shelton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Scot A. Shelton |
Union Pacific Railroad Company |
8:2019cv00016 |
January 14, 2019 |
US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
Joseph F Bataillon |
Cheryl R Zwart |
Federal Employer's Liability |
45 U.S.C. ยง 51 |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 3, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 INITIAL PROGRESSION ORDER: 1) A status conference to discuss case progression and potential settlement will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on May 21, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference.2) Written discovery and depositions may begin at any time.3) Plaintiffs' mandatory disclosures shall be served by April 1, 2019.4) Defendant's mandatory disclosures shall be served by May 1, 2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (CEW) |
Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company on 2/27/2019. (Sassaman, Shawn) |
Filing 6 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 identifying Corporate Parent Union Pacific Corporation for Union Pacific Railroad Company. by Attorney David J. Schmitt on behalf of Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company, Union Pacific Corporation.(Schmitt, David) |
Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint with with jury demand by Union Pacific Railroad Company (Schmitt, David) |
Filing 4 Summons Issued as to defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. YOU MUST PRINT YOUR ISSUED SUMMONS, WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT. PAPER COPIES WILL NOT BE MAILED. (LKO) |
Filing 3 Summons Requested as to regarding Complaint #1 . (Sassaman, Shawn) |
Filing 2 TEXT NOTICE OF JUDGES ASSIGNED: Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart assigned. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2), the parties are notified that, if all parties consent, a magistrate judge may conduct a civil action or proceeding, including a jury or nonjury trial, subject to the courts rules and policies governing the assignment of judges in civil cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; NEGenR 1.4. (LKO) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against Union Pacific Railroad Company ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number ANEDC-3842458), by Attorney Shawn M. Sassaman on behalf of Scot A. Shelton (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sassaman, Shawn) |
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 Nebraska 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: Shelton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Union Pacific Railroad Company | |
Represented By: | David J. Schmitt |
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: Scot A. Shelton | |
Represented By: | Shawn M. Sassaman |
Represented By: | Luke Pepper |
Represented By: | Tobi A. Russeck |
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.