Edmunds v. Nestle USA Inc
Plaintiff: Macio Edmunds, Jr
Defendant: Nestle Dreyers Ice Cream Company
Case Number: 7:2017cv00229
Filed: January 25, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Spartanburg Office
County: Spartanburg
Presiding Judge: Mary Geiger Lewis
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER granting 9 Consent MOTION to Substitute Party filed by Nestle USA Inc. Nestle Dreyers Ice Cream Company added. Nestle USA Inc terminated. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 2/13/2017. (abuc)
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 this case: Edmunds v. Nestle USA Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Macio Edmunds, Jr
Represented By: Patrick Eugene Knie
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: Nestle Dreyers Ice Cream Company
Represented By: John F Kuppens
Represented By: Jay Thomas Thompson
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?