Thomas v. Citi Trends Inc
| Sharon Thomas |
| Citi Trends Inc |
| 2:2019cv00601 |
| April 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Gray M Borden |
| T Michael Putnam |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Gray M Borden. Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam no longer assigned to the case. (KAM) |
| Filing 11 Joint MOTION to Compel Arbitration by Citi Trends Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Arbitration Agreement, #2 Exhibit B - Acknowledgement of Agreement)(Burford, Jennifer) |
Filing 10
TEXT ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond on or before June 7, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on June 4, 2019.(TNC)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint Motion is RIPE 6/3/2019. Any party may file a motion to reconsider within three (3) business days of a ruling on the motion.Filed by Citi Trends Inc. (Burford, Jennifer) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant shall answer or otherwise defend by June 3, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam on May 17, 2019.(TNC)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Its Responsive Pleading Motion is RIPE 5/17/2019. Any party may file a motion to reconsider within three (3) business days of a ruling on the motion.Filed by Citi Trends Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - 5/13/19 email, #2 Exhibit 2 - 5/16/19 email)(Burford, Jennifer) Modified text on 5/17/2019 (MRR, ). |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed Citi Trends Inc served on 4/26/2019, answer due 5/17/2019. (MRR, ) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Citi Trends Inc., sent via certified mail (MRR, ) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE by Sharon Thomas re #1 Complaint Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (Evans, Daniel) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT to magistrate judge jurisdiction (MRR, ) |
| Filing Fee: Filing fee $ 400, receipt_number 1126-3328166 (B4601096944). related document #1 COMPLAINT against Citi Trends Inc, filed by Sharon Thomas.(MRR, ). (Evans, Daniel) Modified on 4/22/2019 (MRR, ). |
| Filing 2 Request for service by certified mail filed by Sharon Thomas. (MRR, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Citi Trends Inc, filed by Sharon Thomas.(MRR, ) |
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 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: Thomas v. Citi Trends Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sharon Thomas | |
| Represented By: | Daniel P Evans |
| Represented By: | Maurine C Evans |
| 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: Citi Trends Inc | |
| Represented By: | Jennifer Carin Burford |
| 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.
