Widmer v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
| Rhonda Widmer and Rhonda J. Widmer |
| Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| 8:2019cv00034 |
| January 24, 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 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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 Plaintiff 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-3850379), by Attorney Shawn M. Sassaman on behalf of Rhonda Widmer (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
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.
