Zele v. AT&T Corp., et al.
| Christine Zele |
| AT&T Corp., Mark Mack and Ohio Bell Telephone Company |
| 1:2019cv02178 |
| September 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| John R Adams |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 451 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Waiver of Service Returned Executed by Christine Zele. AT&T Corp. waiver sent on 10/15/2019, answer due 12/16/2019 filed on behalf of Christine Zele (Biggerman, Mark) |
| Filing 4 Waiver of Service Returned Executed by Christine Zele. Mark Mack waiver sent on 10/15/2019, answer due 12/16/2019 filed on behalf of Christine Zele (Biggerman, Mark) |
| Filing 3 Amended complaint against All Defendants. Filed by Christine Zele. (Biggerman, Mark) |
| Filing 2 Magistrate Consent Form issued. Summons not provided, therefore were not issued. (Y,A) |
| Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand against All Defendants. Filing fee paid $400, receipt number 0647-9532560. Filed by Christine Zele. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Assignment Agreement) (Biggerman, Mark) |
| Judge John R. Adams assigned to case, (Y,A) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke. (Y,A) |
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.
