G.B. v. JADE NAILS HAIR SPA et al
| G.B. |
| JADE NAILS HAIR SPA, JOHN AND JANE DOES (A-Z), ALLEN NHIN, JADE HAIR SALON, JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES (A-Z), LARKEN ASSOCIATES, JOHN DOE BUSINESS COMPANIES (A-Z), JADE NAILS AND SPA, JADE HAIR, JOHN DOE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (A-Z), JOHN DOE JOINT VENTURES (A-Z), JOHN DOE SOLE PROPIETORSHIPS (A-Z), JADE NAILS, JADE NAIL SALON, JOHN DOE PARTNERSHIPS (A-Z) and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS (A-Z) |
| 5:2019cv06093 |
| December 24, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| JOSHUA D WOLSON |
| P.I.: Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against JADE NAILS HAIR SPA, JOHN AND JANE DOES (A-Z), JOHN DOE BUSINESS COMPANIES (A-Z), JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES (A-Z), JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS (A-Z), JOHN DOE JOINT VENTURES (A-Z), JOHN DOE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (A-Z), JOHN DOE PARTNERSHIPS (A-Z), JOHN DOE SOLE PROPIETORSHIPS (A-Z), LARKEN ASSOCIATES, ALLEN NHIN ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number PPE208782.), filed by G.B., JURY DEMAND. (Attachments: #1 CASE FORMS)(jl, )
|
|
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by G.B.. (jl, )
|
|
3 Summons Issued as to JADE NAILS HAIR SPA, LARKEN ASSOCIATES, ALLEN NHIN. Forwarded To: CHRISTOPHER BOOTH on 12/27/19 (jl, )
|
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
- 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.
