ADCO Roofing, Inc. v. Seaman Corporation et al
| ADCO Roofing, Inc. |
| Does 1 through 10 and Seaman Corporation |
| 5:2019cv00821 |
| April 12, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Sara Lioi |
| Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 12, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Motion for attorney Michael W. Ayotte to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 120, receipt number 54660007012, filed by Plaintiff ADCO Roofing, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Declaration in Support, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Certificate of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of California)(M,TL) |
| Filing 2 Original Summons and Magistrate Consent Form issued for service upon Seaman Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form) (M,TL) |
| Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand against Seaman Corporation and Does. Filing fee of $400.00 paid, receipt # 54660007012 filed by ADCO Roofing, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A - Applicator Agreement, #3 Exhibit B - Authorized Applicator Certification Letter, #4 Exhibit C - Email, #5 Envelope) (M,TL) |
| 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. (M,TL) |
| Judge Sara Lioi assigned to case. (M,TL) |
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.
