KANEFSKY v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. et al
| DAVID KANEFSKY |
| THOMAS A. SZLOSEK, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. and DARIUS ADAMCZYK |
| 2:2018cv15536 |
| October 31, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Steven C Mannion |
| William J Martini |
| Securities/Commodities |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
LETTER ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Mark Falk recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 11/15/2018. (dam, ) Modified on 11/15/2018 (dam, ).
|
|
Filing 3
SUMMONS ISSUED as to DARIUS ADAMCZYK, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., THOMAS A. SZLOSEK. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (JB, )
|
|
Judge William J. Martini and Magistrate Judge Mark Falk added. (eu, )
|
|
Filing 2
Request for Summons to be Issued by DAVID KANEFSKY as to DARIUS ADAMCZYK, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., THOMAS A. SZLOSEK. (LINDENFELD, JONATHAN)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against DARIUS ADAMCZYK, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., THOMAS A. SZLOSEK ( Filing and Admin fee $ 400 receipt number 0312-9138755) with JURY DEMAND, filed by DAVID KANEFSKY. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(LINDENFELD, JONATHAN)
|
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.
