Smith v. CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc.
| Lisa Smith |
| CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. |
| 3:2019cv00913 |
| October 16, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Jeffery S Frensley |
| Aleta A Trauger |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 11, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| TN State Bar status verified as active for Christen C. Blackburn. (am) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc.. (Blackburn, Christen) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Filing regarding Pleading filed by Lisa Smith (am) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Lisa Smith. (am) |
| Filing 9 MOTION Request for the Courts Permission to Access CM/ECF Case Information as Pro se Litigant by Lisa Smith. (am) |
Filing 8
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley. This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to enter a scheduling order for the management of the case, to dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/1/2019. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Filing by CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Memo Rebuttal to Notice of Removal)(Chapman, David) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint by CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc..(Chapman, David) |
| Filing 5 BUSINESS ENTITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc.. (Chapman, David) |
| Notice mailed to pro se party regarding filing of new case (docket sheet & certificate of service form included). (am) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE by CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. of Removal to Plaintiff (Chapman, David) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Business Entity Disclosure Statement filing requirement. (am) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (am) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. from Davidson County Circuit Court, case number 19C2279. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0650-3012732) (Attachments: #1 Attachment - Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit - Complaint)(am) |
| TN State Bar status verified as active for David A. Chapman. (am) |
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 Tennessee Middle 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: Smith v. CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Lisa Smith | |
| 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: CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. | |
| Represented By: | David A. Chapman |
| Represented By: | Christen C. Blackburn |
| 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.
