HAMLIN v. TOYOTA MOTORS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit Pennsylvania Western District HAMLIN v. TOYOTA MOTORS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

HAMLIN v. TOYOTA MOTORS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

Plaintiff:	APRIL C. HAMLIN
Defendant:	TOYOTA MOTORS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Case Number:	2:2011cv00881
Filed:	July 5, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Pittsburgh Office
County:	Allegheny
Presiding Judge:	Nora Barry Fischer
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 2, 2011	Filing 5 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint to Amend/Reinstate Civil Action No. 11-0881 and a Complaint to Amend/Reinstate Civil Action No. 11-0881 Correction (Docket Nos. 3 , 4 ), which the Court construes Plaintiff' ;s submissions as a motion for reconsideration of the Courts 7/6/11 Order, dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (See Docket No. 2 ), for the the reasons stated more fully within, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 3 is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/2/11. (jg)
July 6, 2011	Filing 2 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Plaintiff April C. Hamlin's Pro Se Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 , it is hereby ordered that said Motion 1 is granted as to the In Forma Pauperis Status of Pro Se Plaintiff April C. Hamlin only; that the above captioned matter is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/6/11. (jg)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 2, 2011

Filing 5 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint to Amend/Reinstate Civil Action No. 11-0881 and a Complaint to Amend/Reinstate Civil Action No. 11-0881 Correction (Docket Nos. 3 , 4 ), which the Court construes Plaintiff' ;s submissions as a motion for reconsideration of the Courts 7/6/11 Order, dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (See Docket No. 2 ), for the the reasons stated more fully within, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 3 is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/2/11. (jg)

July 6, 2011

Filing 2 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Plaintiff April C. Hamlin's Pro Se Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 , it is hereby ordered that said Motion 1 is granted as to the In Forma Pauperis Status of Pro Se Plaintiff April C. Hamlin only; that the above captioned matter is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/6/11. (jg)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: HAMLIN v. TOYOTA MOTORS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: TOYOTA MOTORS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: APRIL C. HAMLIN
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?