Ruben Medina, et al v. Sears Roebuck and Co., et al
| Heather Ximenez and Ruben Medina |
| Sears Roebuck and Co. and Otis Elevator Company |
| 5:2018cv00934 |
| September 10, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Xavier Rodriguez |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ORDER Plaintiffs and Defendants are therefore ORDERED to submit briefing concerning whether this action should be stayed as to Defendant Otis Elevator Co. pending the resolution of Sears Roebuck and Co.s bankruptcy case, no later than November 16, 2018. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (rg)
|
| Filing 13 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY as to Sears Roebuck and Co. . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Chapter 11 Petition)(Aubert, Christopher) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR 12/12/2018 at 10:00 AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (jhw)
|
|
Filing 11
SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 10/9/2019 09:30 AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez, Jury Trial set for 10/21/2019 09:30 AM before Judge Xavier Rodriguez, ADR Report Deadline due by 5/31/2019, Amended Pleadings due by 12/10/2018, Discovery due by 5/31/2019, Motions due by 7/22/2019,. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (jhw)
|
| Filing 10 RESPONSE to #4 Order for Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order, by Otis Elevator Company, Sears Roebuck and Co.. (Aubert, Christopher) |
| Filing 9 Scheduling Recommendations by Otis Elevator Company, Sears Roebuck and Co.. (Aubert, Christopher) |
| Filing 8 NON-CONSENT to Trial by US Magistrate Judge by Otis Elevator Company. (Bradberry, Debra) |
| Filing 7 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Otis Elevator Company. (Bradberry, Debra) |
| Filing 6 First Amended ANSWER to Complaint by Otis Elevator Company.(Bradberry, Debra) |
| Filing 5 NON-CONSENT to Trial by US Magistrate Judge by Sears Roebuck and Co.. (Aubert, Christopher) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER AND ADVISORY for Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Scheduling Order. Plantiff shall submit agreed scheduling recommendations/proposed scheduling order to the Court.(Scheduling Recommendations/Proposed Schedule Order due October 11, 2018); Notice of right to consent to disposition of a civil case by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez.(jhw)
|
| Filing 3 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Sears Roebuck and Co..(Aubert, Christopher) |
| Filing 2 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Sears Roebuck and Co.. (Aubert, Christopher) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Sears Roebuck and Co. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0542-11210431), filed by Sears Roebuck and Co.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplement to Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit A - Original Petition, #4 Exhibit B - Citation & Service on Sears, #5 Exhibit C - State Court Pleading (Otis's Answer), #6 Exhibit D - Notice of Consent to Removal by Otis, #7 Exhibit E - Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal)(Aubert, Christopher) |
| If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Chestney. (rg) |
| Case assigned to Judge Xavier Rodriguez. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (rg) |
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 Texas Western 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.
