BARNETT vs. ASTRAZENECA LP et al.
| WALT BARNETT |
| ASTRAZENECA LP and ASTRAZENECA PHAMACEUTICALS LP |
| PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.II) |
| 2:2018cv11453 |
| July 9, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Newark Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Claire C Cecchi |
| Mark Falk |
| Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Judge Claire C. Cecchi and Magistrate Judge Mark Falk added. (gh, ) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against ASTRAZENECA LP, ASTRAZENECA PHAMACEUTICALS LP with JURY DEMAND, filed by WALT BARNETT. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(HONNOLD, BRADLEY) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against ASTRAZENECA LP, ASTRAZENECA PHAMACEUTICALS LP ( Filing and Admin fee $ 400 receipt number 0312-8867443) with JURY DEMAND, filed by WALT BARNETT. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(HONNOLD, BRADLEY) |
| CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The Complaint submitted by Walt Barnett on 7/9/2018 contains an improper signature. Only the filing user is permitted to sign electronically filed documents with an s/. (Attorney will resubmit the Complaint with proper signature). This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (byl) |
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 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.
