Mead et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
| Bobby Mead and Karrie Mead |
| Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| 8:2023cv00170 |
| April 28, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| Joseph F Bataillon |
| Susan M Bazis |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
SCHEDULING ORDER - Rule 26 Meeting Report Deadline set for 7/3/2023.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (MKR)
|
|
Filing 11
RESTRICTED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE INSTRUCTIONS AND ORDER. ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(e). Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (RMW)
|
| Filing 10 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 identifying Other Affiliate Southern Pacific Rail Corporation, Other Affiliate Southern Pacific Rail Corporation for Union Pacific Railroad Company. by Attorney Chad M. Knight on behalf of Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Rail Corporation.(Knight, Chad) |
| Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint by Union Pacific Railroad Company (Knight, Chad) |
|
Filing 8
TEXT ORDER granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by June 1, 2023. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (LRH)
|
| Filing 7 TEXT NOTICE REGARDING CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Deputy Clerk as to Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, non-governmental corporate parties are required to file Corporate Disclosure Statements (Statements). The parties shall use the form Corporate Disclosure Statement, available on the Web site of the court at http://www.ned.uscourts.gov /forms/. If you have not filed your Statement, you must do so within 15 days of the date of this notice. If you have already filed your Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (ADB) |
| Filing 6 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading by Attorney Chad M. Knight on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Knight, Chad) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company on 5/3/2023. (High, Justin) |
| 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 Union Pacific Railroad Company regarding Complaint #1 . (High, Justin) |
| Filing 2 TEXT NOTICE OF JUDGES ASSIGNED: Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis 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 $ 402, receipt number ANEDC-4853990), by Attorney Justin W. High on behalf of Karrie Mead, Bobby Mead(High, Justin) |
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.
