Pankey v. Hi-Tek Manufacturing, Inc. et al
| Orlando Pankey |
| Hi-Tek Manufacturing, Inc., AAIM EA Training and Consulting, LLC and Aerotek, Inc. |
| 1:2018cv00702 |
| October 4, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Michael R Barrett |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 30, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 NOTICE by Plaintiff Orlando Pankey OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 41(A) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT AAIM EA TRAINING AND CONSULTING, LLC (Miller-Novak, Matthew) |
| Filing 4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to AAIM EA Training and Consulting, LLC on 10/8/2018, answer due 12/7/2018. (Miller-Novak, Matthew) |
| Filing 3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Waiver sent to Aerotek, Inc. on 10/8/2018, answer due 12/7/2018. (Miller-Novak, Matthew) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian Paul Gillan for Plaintiff Orlando Pankey (Gillan, Brian) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against AAIM EA Training and Consulting, LLC, Aerotek, Inc., Hi-Tek Manufacturing, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 paid - receipt number: 0648-6626539), filed by Orlando Pankey. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Miller-Novak, Matthew) |
| If this case is referred, it will be to Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. (eh) |
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 Southern 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.
