Crews v. Onder Law, LLC et al
Alvin Crews |
Stephanie L. Rados and Onder Law, LLC |
4:2024cv00036 |
October 5, 2024 |
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
C Kailani Memmer |
Michael F Urbanski |
Contract: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity - Legal Malpractice |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 16, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Alvin Crews. All Defendants.(Crews, Carl) |
![]() |
Filing 2 Electronic Summons Issued as to: Onder Law, LLC, and Stephanie L. Rados NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Please print copies of the electronically issued summons for each defendant as necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.(bsm) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Onder Law, LLC, and Stephanie L. Rados (Filing & Administrative fee $ 405 receipt number AVAWDC - 4525842.), filed by Alvin Crews, as Administrator of the Estate of Lorine Davis. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit 1 - Abstract: Link Between Talcum Powder And Gynecologic Cancers; Onder Law, LLC Employment Agreement; and a letter from the Region X Disciplinary Committee Under Authority of the Missouri Supreme Court Chief Disciplinary Counsel To: Stephani L. Rados, Esq.)Modified on 10.07.2024 to replace a deficient Complaint with Complaint bearing a Case Number(bsm) (Main Document 1 replaced on 10/7/2024) (bsm). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Virginia 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.