OJO et al v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
| TEMIDAYO OJO and SANDRA OJO |
| INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE |
| 2:2024cv06600 |
| May 26, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Stacey D Adams |
| Madeline Cox Arleo |
| Taxes |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 702 Administrative Procedure Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Stacey D. Adams. Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen no longer assigned to the case. (nic, ) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by OLUKAYODE DAVID OJO. (Received via ECF Help Desk)(qa, ) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS ISSUED as to INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (jr) |
| Filing 3 Clerk's Letter: Complaint not accompanied by the filing fee or application to proceed in forma pauperis. (and) |
| Filing 2 Notice of Guidelines for Appearing Pro Se (and) |
| COMPLAINT against INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ( Filing and Admin fee $ 405 receipt number NEW50305) with JURY DEMAND, filed by TEMIDAYO OJO, SANDRA OJO. See doc. #1 (jr) |
| Filing 4 Consent & Registration Form to Receive Documents Electronically by SANDRA OJO, TEMIDAYO OJO (Attachments: #1 Consent to Receive - S. Ojo)(jr) |
| Filing 1 Complaint Received. (and) |
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.
