Cotton v. Otis Elevator Company
Plaintiff: Antiqueeta Cotton
Defendant: United Technologies Corp., Otis Elevator Company and United Technologies Corp. doing business as Otis Elevator
Case Number: 2:2019cv00777
Filed: October 11, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Presiding Judge: Wallace Capel
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 6, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER DENYING as moot Plaintiff's #12 Motion to Dismiss, as further set out in Order. Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 12/6/2019. (am, )
December 4, 2019 Filing 14 NOTICE of Correction re #12 MOTION to Dismiss United Technologies Corp. to correct main PDF document previously attached by e-filer (Attachments: #1 Corrected Main Document entry #12 )(am, )
December 3, 2019 Filing 13 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Antiqueeta Cotton re #8 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (Dasinger, Brian)
December 3, 2019 Filing 12 MOTION to Dismiss United Technologies Corp. by Antiqueeta Cotton. (Dasinger, Brian) (Main Document 12 replaced on 12/4/2019 to correct pdf document previously attached by e-filer) (am, ).
December 3, 2019 Filing 11 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Otis Elevator Company re #9 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (Speegle, Clinton) Modified on 12/3/2019 to add the link to the #11 Notice (amf, ).
December 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER DIRECTING that the Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not later than 12/23/2019, as further set out in Order; DIRECTING the parties, on or before 12/23/2019, to confirm consent electronically or to complete and send the appropriate attached form to the Clerk of the Court, as further set out in Order. Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 12/2/2019. (am, )
December 2, 2019 Filing 9 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Otis Elevator Company; Corporate Disclosures due by 12/12/2019. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order and Format)(am, )
December 2, 2019 Filing 8 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Antiqueeta Cotton; Corporate Disclosures due by 12/12/2019. (am, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/2/2019: #1 STANDING ORDER) (am, ).
December 2, 2019 Filing 7 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge sent to counsel for Otis Elevator Company. (am, )
November 27, 2019 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Otis Elevator Company. (NO PDF - See doc #6 ) (am, )
November 27, 2019 ***PURSUANT TO THE #6 ANSWER - Attorneys Melody Hurdle Eagan & Charles Michael Hearn for Otis Elevator Company added. (NO PDF attached to this entry). (am, )
November 27, 2019 Filing 6 ANSWER to #5 Amended Complaint by Otis Elevator Company.(Speegle, Clinton)
November 15, 2019 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Antiqueeta Cotton. (NO PDF - See doc #5 ) (am, )
November 15, 2019 Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT Antiqueeta Cotton against Otis Elevator Company, filed by Antiqueeta Cotton.(Dasinger, Brian)
October 28, 2019 Filing 4 Return Receipt Card showing service of Summons, #1 Complaint signed by Samuel Bampo for United Technologies Corp. served on 10/24/2019, answer due 11/14/2019. (kr, )
October 17, 2019 Filing 3 Summons Issued as to United Technologies Corp. and mailed CMRRR with copy of #1 complaint. (kh, ) Modified on 10/17/2019 (kh, ).
October 17, 2019 Filing 2 NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge sent to counsel for Antiqueeta Cotton (kh, )
October 11, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against United Technologies Corp. ( Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number 4602055250.), filed by Antiqueeta Cotton. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Filing Fee Receipt)(kh, )
October 11, 2019 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Antiqueeta Cotton. (no pdf document attached to this entry - see docket entry #1 for pdf)(kh, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cotton v. Otis Elevator Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United Technologies Corp.
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: Otis Elevator Company
Represented By: Charles Michael Hearn
Represented By: Clinton Timothy Speegle
Represented By: Melody Hurdle Eagan
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: United Technologies Corp. doing business as Otis Elevator
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 ]
Plaintiff: Antiqueeta Cotton
Represented By: Brian A. Dasinger
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.


Why Is My Information Online?