Mugler v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Jada Mugler
Defendant: Target Corporation
Case Number: 1:2022cv05675
Filed: September 22, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Robert M Levy
Referring Judge: Nina Morrison
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 24, 2022 Filing 10 Proposed Scheduling Order Pursuant to Rule 26(f) by Target Corporation (Bojbasa, Michael)
October 24, 2022 Opinion or Order ORDER RE #10 Parties Proposed Scheduling Order Pursuant to Rule 26(f) by Target Corporation. SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 10/24/2022. (JM)
October 23, 2022 Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Bojbasa on behalf of Target Corporation (aty to be noticed) (Bojbasa, Michael)
October 19, 2022 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Mike Bojbasa, Alexey Rybakov. Scheduling order approved. 2/28/23 completion of fact discovery 2/28/13. Plaintiff is still treating. Next conference 2/23/23 at 10:00 (same dial-in number and access code)(close of fact discovery/exploration of settlement).Initial Conference Hearing held on 10/19/2022 (Levy, Robert)
October 18, 2022 Case Reassigned to Judge Nina Morrison. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto no longer assigned to the case. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (AM)
September 26, 2022 Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexey Rybakov on behalf of Jada Mugler (aty to be noticed) (Rybakov, Alexey)
September 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 SCHEDULING ORDER: An initial conference by telephone has been scheduled for October 19, 2022 at 4:30 p.m., before the Honorable Robert M. Levy, United States Magistrate Judge at (888) 684-8852; Access Code #: 6223489. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 9/23/2022. (Attachments: #1 IC QUESTIONNAIRE, #2 INDIVIDUAL RULES) (Marino, Janine)
September 23, 2022 Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint by Target Corporation. (Crowley, Michael)
September 23, 2022 Filing 5 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla)
September 23, 2022 Filing 4 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla)
September 23, 2022 This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (Bowens, Priscilla)
September 22, 2022 Case Assigned to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto and Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla)
September 22, 2022 Filing 3 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Target Corporation (Crowley, Michael)
September 22, 2022 Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Target Corporation (Crowley, Michael)
September 22, 2022 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Target Corporation from Supreme Court/Kings County, case number 518595/2022. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-15967848) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Summons & Verified Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Affidavit of Service) (Crowley, Michael)

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 York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mugler v. Target Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jada Mugler
Represented By: Alex Rybakov
Represented By: Alexey Rybakov
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Target Corporation
Represented By: Michael J. Crowley
Represented By: Michael Bojbasa
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?