Jaynes v. G4S Security Solutions, Inc.

Defendant: G4S Security Solutions, Inc.
Plaintiff: Teah Jaynes
Case Number: 2:2013cv00788
Filed: May 6, 2013
Court: Nevada District Court
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Kent J. Dawson
Referring Judge: Carl W. Hoffman
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
June 24, 2013 12 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 11 Motion to Extend Time to File. Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 6/27/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/24/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jaynes v. G4S Security Solutions, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: G4S Security Solutions, Inc.
Represented By: Chelsea P. Pyasetskyy
Represented By: David L. Barron
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Teah Jaynes
Represented By: Chris R. McCullough
Represented By: Frank Perez
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 [ 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.