Tice v. Boston Scientific Corporation
| Allison Tice |
| Boston Scientific Corporation and John Does |
| 5:2022cv00763 |
| May 11, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| John R Adams |
| Sara Lioi |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
Reply in support of #4 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Boston Scientific Corporation. (Rawlin, Dustin) Modified to note unsigned, filer notified on 6/23/2022 (O,K).
|
|
Filing 9
Opposition to #4 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Allison Tice. (Pelini, Craig)
|
|
Filing 8
Answer to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Boston Scientific Corporation. (Rawlin, Dustin)
|
|
Filing 7
Initial Standing Order. Judge Sara Lioi on 5/19/2022. (Attachments: #1 Appendix A - Witness List, #2 Appendix B - Exhibit List) (O,K)
|
|
Filing 6
Order of Recusal. This case is returned to the Clerk for reassignment to another judge. Judge John R. Adams on 05/19/2022. (M,TL)
|
|
Judge Sara Lioi assigned to case. Judge John R. Adams terminated. (O,K)
|
|
Order [non-document] granting Motion for appearance pro hac vice by attorney Christopher W. Fowlkes for Boston Scientific Corporation. 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 already registered to file electronically, it is not necessary to register again. (Related Doc #5 ). Judge John R. Adams on 5/13/22.(K,C)
|
|
Filing 5
Motion for attorney Christopher W. Fowlkes to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 120, receipt number AOHNDC-11419062, filed by Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of C. Fowlkes )(Rawlin, Dustin)
|
|
Filing 4
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Brief in Support, #2 Declaration in Support, #3 Exhibit A -- Complaint, #4 Exhibit B -- PMA P030017, #5 Exhibit C -- Summary of Safety and Effectiveness, #6 Exhibit D -- Labeling part 1, #7 Exhibit E -- Labeling part 2, #8 Exhibit F -- Listing of Supplements, #9 Request for Judicial Notice)(Rawlin, Dustin)
|
|
Filing 3
Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Boston Scientific Corporation. (Rawlin, Dustin)
|
|
Filing 2
Magistrate Consent Form issued. (G,M)
|
|
Filing 1
Notice of Removal from Summit Country Court of Common Pleas, case number CV-2021-06-1728. Filing fee paid $ 402, receipt number AOHNDC-11416399. Filed by Boston Scientific Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Summons and Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Certificate of Service) (Rawlin, Dustin)
|
|
Judge John R. Adams assigned to case. (G,M)
|
|
Notice by Clerk that Boston Scientific Corporation failed to file a corporate disclosure statement as required by Local Rule 3.13(b). (G,M)
|
|
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Amanda M. Knapp. (G,M)
|
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.
