BUDZEL v. FRANKLIN BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
| LUKAS BUDZEL |
| FRANKLIN BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, ERIC MOSCHBERGER, GUS PROTOGEROPOULOS and ROBERT VANDER PLOEG |
| 2:2024cv00525 |
| January 29, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Jamel K Semper |
| Leda D Wettre |
| Constitutional - State Statute |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Exhibit to QC - Civil Cover Sheet JS44,, #1 Notice of Removal by All Defendants. (BERNSTEIN, ERIC) |
| Judge Jamel K. Semper and Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre added. (ps) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by FRANKLIN BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT from Sussex Superior Court, case number SSX-L-514-23. ( Filing and Admin fee $ 405 receipt number ANJDC-15046350), filed by FRANKLIN BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT.(BERNSTEIN, ERIC) |
| CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The case you electronically filed did not include a Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44), which is required to be submitted along with the initial pleading, as indicated in the Attorney Case Opening Guide. Please complete and file a #Civil Cover Sheet using the event Exhibit (to Document) found under Civil/Other Filings/Other Documents. Please refer to the Attorney Case Opening Guide for processing electronically filed cases. (ps) |
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.
