ANDERSON v. TIKTOK, INC.
|Defendant:||TIKTOK, INC. and BYTEDANCE, INC.|
|Filed:||May 12, 2022|
|Court:||US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania|
|Presiding Judge:||PAUL S DIAMOND|
|Nature of Suit:||P.I.: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability|
|Cause of Action:||28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability|
|Jury Demanded By:||Plaintiff|
This docket was last retrieved on October 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
|Date Filed||Document Text|
|May 24, 2022||Filing 7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by TAWAINNA ANDERSON. All Defendants. (MONGELUZZI, ROBERT)|
|May 20, 2022||Filing 6 STANDING ORDER OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/20/2022. 5/23/2022 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(rt)|
|May 13, 2022||Filing 5 Summons Issued as to BYTEDANCE, INC., TIKTOK, INC.. Forwarded To: EMAILED TO PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL on 5/13/2022 (sg)|
|May 12, 2022||Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Parthena McCarthy on behalf of TAWAINNA ANDERSON (McCarthy, Parthena)|
|May 12, 2022||Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by JEFFREY P. GOODMAN on behalf of TAWAINNA ANDERSON (GOODMAN, JEFFREY)|
|May 12, 2022||Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by SAMUEL B. DORDICK on behalf of TAWAINNA ANDERSON (DORDICK, SAMUEL)|
|May 12, 2022||Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number BPAEDC-15917186.), filed by Tawainna Anderson. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Designation Form)(MONGELUZZI, ROBERT)|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- 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.