FANOR v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL- UMDNJ et al
| EVANS FANOR |
| UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL- UMDNJ and JANE BLOMSTROM |
| 2:2016cv00320 |
| January 15, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Newark Office |
| Camden |
| Mark Falk |
| John Michael Vazquez |
| Family and Medical Leave Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 2601 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
118
OPINION. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 11/25/2020. (bt, )
|
|
Filing
20
AMENDED LETTER OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants' 16 motion is DENIED as to the dismissal of claims against Jane Blomstrom due to insufficient service of process. Instead, the initial service as to Blomstrom is quashed and Plaintiff is grant ed an extension of 45 days from receipt of this Order to effectuate proper service. The Clerks Office is directed to reissue the summons as to Defendant JANE BLOMSTRON. Defendants motion is GRANTED as to the dismissal of Count Four of the Compla int, which shall be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by certified mail return receipt. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 9/9/16. (sr, ) (N/M via certified mail to Pltf. #7012 3050 0001 0977 0620)
|
|
Filing
19
LETTER OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 8/29/16. (sr, )
|
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 New Jersey 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.
