Montgomery v. TD Bank, N.A.
| Shena Montgomery |
| TD Bank US Holding Company and TD Bank, N.A. |
| 7:2022cv00846 |
| March 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Jacquelyn D Austin |
| Timothy M Cain |
| Henry M Herlong |
| Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 12, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Summons Issued as to TD Bank, N.A. (sgri) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF CASE NUMBER: 7:22-cv-00846-HMH-JDA. (sgri) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against TD Bank, N.A., filed by Shena Montgomery. Service due by 8/8/2022 (Ferguson, Emmanuel) (Main Document 8 replaced to correct case number on 5/11/2022) (sgri). |
| Filing 7 Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr. Judge Honorable Timothy M Cain no longer assigned to the case. (glev, ) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Request for Protection from Court Appearance by Emmanuel Ferguson, I for multiple dates (Ferguson, Emmanuel) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to TD Bank US Holding Company. (sgri) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Shena Montgomery. (sgri) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against TD Bank US Holding Company ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ASCDC-10390181.), filed by Shena Montgomery. Service due by 6/13/2022 (sgri) |
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
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.
