Wilson v. Oakland Unified School District
| Mark A. Wilson |
| Oakland Unified School District |
| 4:2021cv09157 |
| November 26, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Kandis A Westmore |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Mark A. Wilson re #2 Summons Issued, #3 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2022)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION for Permission for Electronic Case Filing filed by Mark A. Wilson. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2022)
|
|
Filing 7
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mark A. Wilson. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2022)
|
|
Filing 6
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mark A. Wilson. Oakland Unified School District served on 12/2/2021, answer due 12/23/2021. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2021)
|
|
Filing 5
CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Mark A. Wilson.. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2021)
|
|
Filing 4
Notice Regarding Resources Available to Pro Se Litigants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/26/2021. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2021) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
|
|
Filing 3
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case may fall within the Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. See #General Order 71. Parties and Counsel are directed to review General Order 71 to determine whether it applies to this case, and to comply with that General Order if applicable. Case Management Statement due by 2/22/2022. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/1/2022 01:30 PM in Oakland, - To be determined. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
|
|
Filing 2
Summons Issued as to Oakland Unified School District. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2021)
|
|
Filing 1
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT against Oakland Unified School District (Filing fee $ 402.00., receipt number 44611017320). Filed by Mark A. Wilson. Consent/Declination due by 12/10/2021. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Filing fee receipt) (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2021)
|
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 California Northern 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: Wilson v. Oakland Unified School District | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mark A. Wilson | |
| 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: Oakland Unified School District | |
| 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.
