Smith v. Liscoe et al.
| Michelle Smith |
| Andrew Liscoe and Bretzyl Liscoe |
| 1:2023cv02426 |
| December 21, 2023 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| David A Ruiz |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Fair Housing Act |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Initial Disclosures Served Upon Plaintiff on 2.14.24 filed by Andrew Liscoe. Related document(s) #10 .(Spellacy, Leo) |
| Filing 10 Report of Parties' Planning Meeting - parties do not consent to this case being assigned to the magistrate judge, filed by Michelle Smith. (Attachments: #1 Attachment to Report of Parties' Planning Meeting)(Dillon, Rosalind) |
| Filing 9 Initial Disclosures filed by Bretzyl Liscoe. (Brunn, Jr., Thomas) |
| Filing 8 Case Management Conference Scheduling Order with case management conference to be held on 2/21/2024 at 11:00 AM by telephone before Judge David A. Ruiz. Conferencing instructions to be emailed to counsel. Lead counsel and parties must participate unless excused by the Court upon written motion. IMPORTANT: The parties are advised to carefully read this Order. Judge David A. Ruiz on 1/23/2024. (Attachments: #1 Report of the Parties Planning Meeting) (G,CA) |
Order [non-document] granting Plaintiff's #5 Motion for appearance pro hac vice by attorney Thomas R. Kayes for Michelle Smith. Local Rule 5.1(c) requires that attorneys register for NextGen CM/ECF and file and receive all documents electronically. NextGen CM/ECF registration can be done online at www.pacer.gov. Login with your PACER credentials, go to the Maintenance tab, click Attorney Admissions/E-File Registration, select Ohio Northern District Court and then select Pro Hac Vice. If you were previously granted pro hac vice status and are registered to file electronically, it is not necessary to register again. Judge David A. Ruiz on 1/19/2024. (G,CA)
|
| Filing 7 Answer to #1 Complaint, filed by Andrew Liscoe. (Spellacy, Leo) |
| Filing 6 Answer to #1 Complaint, with Jury Demand filed by Bretzyl Liscoe. (Brunn, Jr., Thomas) |
| Filing 5 Motion for attorney Thomas R. Kayes to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee paid, $120.00. Receipt number 149689. Filed by Plaintiff Michelle Smith. Document was not hand signed. (Attachments: #1 Declaration in Support, #2 Supreme Court of Illinois Certificate of Good Standing, #3 Supreme Court of California Certificate of Good Standing) (R,AP) |
| Filing 4 Proof of Service by personal service executed upon Bretzyl Liscoe on 12/27/2023, filed on behalf of Michelle Smith (Related document(s) #2 ) (Dillon, Rosalind) |
| Filing 3 Proof of Service by personal service executed upon Andrew Liscoe on 12/27/2023, filed on behalf of Michelle Smith (Related document(s) #2 ) (Dillon, Rosalind) |
| Filing 2 Original Summons and Magistrate Consent Form issued to counsel for service upon Andrew Liscoe, Bretzyl Liscoe. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form). (H,Ch) |
| Judge David A. Ruiz assigned to case. (H,Ch) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. (H,Ch) |
| Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand against All Defendants. Filing fee paid $ 405, Receipt number AOHNDC-12328436. Filed by Michelle Smith. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons on Andrew Liscoe, #3 Summons on Bretzyl Liscoe) (Dillon, Rosalind) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
