Spangler v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al
| Nicole Spangler |
| United Parcel Service, Inc., United Parcel Service Co. and United Parcel Service General Services CO. |
| 1:2022cv01454 |
| September 27, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Mark D Clarke |
| Motor Vehicle Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
Supplemental Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motions to Strike #14 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 16
Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motions to Strike #14 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 15
Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motions to Strike #14 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Nicole Spangler. (Idiart, Damian)
|
|
Filing 14
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motions to Strike. Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer #12 . Answer is due by 10/18/2022. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
|
|
Filing 12
Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Unopposed Stipulated. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 11
Corporate Disclosure Statement . Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 10
Amended Demand for Jury Trial by All Defendants . Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 9
Demand for Jury Trial by All Defendants . Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER: Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Answer #6 . Answer is due by 10/11/2022. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER: Finding as Moot Motion for Extension of Time to Answer #5 . Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
|
|
Filing 6
Motion for Extension of Time to Answer . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 5
Motion for Extension of Time to Answer . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 4
Scheduling Order regarding Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order, #3 . Consent to Jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge, if any, is to be filed by 1/30/2023. Dispositive Motions are due by 2/27/2023. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (jkm)
|
|
Filing 3
Notice of Case Assignment to Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 1/30/2023. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 2/27/2023. Pretrial Order is due by 2/27/2023. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (jkm)
|
|
Filing 1
Notice to Plaintiff: Removal to Federal Court Filed by All Defendants. (Mepham, David)
|
|
Filing 2
Notice of Removal of Case Number 22CV27882 from Jackson County Circuit Court. Filing Fee in amount of $402 collected. Agency Tracking ID:AORDC-8669344 issued. Filed by United Parcel Service Co., United Parcel Service, Inc., United Parcel Service General Services CO. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet). (sss)
|
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 Oregon 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.
