Craig v. Target Corporation
| Dina Craig |
| Target Corporation |
| 0:2021cv03986 |
| December 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Joseph F Anderson |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 26, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Dina Craig.(Eichholz, David) |
| Filing 9 CLERK'S NOTICE: Plaintiff has never filed the required Answers to Local Rule 26.01 Interrogatories which are to be filed no later than 14 days after service of the notice of removal. The Notice of Removal was filed on 12/9/21. Plaintiff shall file answers to interrogatories no later than 1/27/22. (mflo, ) |
Filing 8
SCHEDULING ORDER and SPECIAL NOTICE TO COUNSEL WITH CASES BEFORE JUDGE JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR. Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 2/17/2022, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 5/16/2022, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 6/20/2022, Discovery due by 10/3/2022, Motions due by 10/24/2022, Jury Selection Deadline 1/5/2023. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 1/3/22. (mflo, )
|
| Filing 7 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr: Rule 16 Conference held on 1/3/2022. Court to file scheduling order. Court Reporter not present. (mflo, ) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL RULE 16 CONFERENCE: Rule 16 Conference set for Monday, January 3, 2022 at 2:00 p..m. The Court will conduct the conference via telephone. Counsel shall initiate the call and once everyone is on the line please call Judge Anderson at 803-765-5136. Alternatively, the parties may supply a conference call-in number to chambers. Matters to be taken up during the conference will include all those items identified in Rule 16(a) and (c) if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The attorneys of record shall conduct a conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) no later than 14 days prior to the date of the Rule 16 Conference. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 12/9/21. (mflo, )
|
| Filing 3 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Target Corporation. (mflo, ) |
| Filing 2 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Target Corporation.(mflo, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from York County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2021-CP-46-3366. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ASCDC-1022768), filed by Target Corporation. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(mflo, ) |
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 South Carolina 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
| Search for this case: Craig v. Target Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Dina Craig | |
| Represented By: | David S Eichholz |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Target Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Grace Gardner Brown |
| Represented By: | Mark Steven Barrow |
| 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.
