Filing Error
| Advanced Dermatology |
| Michelle Sullentrup and MyDermRecruiter |
| 1:2019cv02029 |
| September 4, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Pamela A Barker |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 227 Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act/Junk Fax Prevention Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CASE OPENING ERROR. This case was opened by Ronald Frederick. Duplicate case opened. This case will be terminated. (S,MD) |
| Remark by Finance. Funds in the amount of $400.00 refunded on 09/12/2019. (W,L) |
| Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand against All Defendants. Filing fee paid $400, receipt number 0647-9504114. Filed by Advanced Dermatology. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit exhibit 1 May 2019 fax, #2 Exhibit exhibit 2 June 2019 fax, #3 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Summons) (Frederick, Ronald) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker. (Y,A) |
| Judge Pamela A. Barker assigned to case, (Y,A) |
| Request to Clerk for refund of erroneous or duplicate on-line filing fee payment. Reason for refund request: DUPLICATE CASE FILING. Receipt #: 0647-9504114, filed by Advanced Dermatology. (Frederick, Ronald) |
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 Ohio Northern 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.
