Tillman v. Starbucks Corporation
| Kayleigh Tillman |
| Starbucks Corporation |
| 2:2021cv00682 |
| May 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Gray M Borden |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 12, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
INITIAL ORDER - GOVERNING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gray M Borden on June 25, 2021. (ASL)
|
|
Filing 15
CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden filed by Kayleigh Tillman, Starbucks Corporation; the telephone conference set for 6/23/2021 at 10:15 a.m. is CANCELLED (KAM)
|
|
Filing 14
NOTICE to remind parties of consent conference scheduled at 10:15 AM on Wednesday, June 23, 2021; if all parties submit an executed consent form, either consenting or declining magistrate judge jurisdiction, the conference will be cancelled (ASL)
|
|
Filing 13
TEXT ORDER granting #12 Motion for Extension of Time. The #9 order requiring the parties to comply with Rule 26 is CONTINUED GENERALLY until after a decision on the motion to remand and/or the motion to dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden on 06/14/2021. (SUH)
|
|
Filing 12
Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to file R26 Conference and Report by Kayleigh Tillman. (Ladores, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 11
Opposition to re #6 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand filed by Starbucks Corporation. (Hall, Amber)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER - Pursuant to the General Order For Referral of Civil Matters to the United States Magistrate Judges of the Northern District of Alabama, dated January 2, 2015, the parties are REQUIRED to enter an election regarding the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) no later than July 1, 2021. In the absence of consent by all parties, the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to reassign the case to a district judge without further order after July 1, 2021. A telephone status conference is hereby SET for 10:15 a.m. on June 23, 2021. The parties are DIRECTED to call 866-390-1828 to access the telephone conference. The access code is 9262283. The telephone conference will be cancelled if all forms are submitted twenty-four hours in advance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gray M Borden on 5/26/21. (MRR, )
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 26. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gray M Borden on May 26, 2021. (ASL)
|
|
Filing 8
TEXT ORDER re #6 Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff. Defendant is ORDERED file a response to the motion on or before June 7, 2021, and Plaintiff may file a reply on or before June 14, 2021.Signed by Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden on 05/24/2021. (SUH)
|
|
Filing 7
TEXT ORDER: Before the court is the #5 motion to allow Kristin M. Kizziah, to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff. The motion, which includes the information required under the Local Rules, is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED, subject to the payment of the applicable fee within seven calendar days. Upon receipt of the required fee, this conditional grant of pro hac vice status will become final without further court action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gray M. Borden on 05/24/2021. (SUH)
|
|
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126-3849190 (B4601113550). (Ladores, Andrew) Modified on 5/26/2021 (MRR, ).
|
|
Filing 6
First MOTION to Remand to State Court by Kayleigh Tillman. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit Demand Letter)(Ladores, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 5
First MOTION Pro Hac Vice for Kristen M. Kizziah by Kayleigh Tillman. (Ladores, Andrew) Modified docket text on 5/24/2021 (MRR, ).
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Seth Ladores on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ladores, Andrew)
|
|
Filing Fee: Filing fee $ 402, receipt_number 1126-3842028. related document #1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Starbucks Corporation from Circuit Court of Jefferson County, case number 2021-901092. (), filed by Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(KAM). (Clark, Kevin) NDAL rec #B4601113451 .
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION to Dismiss by Starbucks Corporation. (KAM)
|
|
Filing 2
NOTICE of Corporate Disclosure by Starbucks Corporation (KAM)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Starbucks Corporation from Circuit Court of Jefferson County, case number 2021-901092. (), filed by Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(KAM)
|
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: Tillman v. Starbucks Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Kayleigh Tillman | |
| Represented By: | Kristin M Kizziah |
| Represented By: | Andrew Seth Ladores |
| 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: Starbucks Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Kevin E Clark |
| Represented By: | Amber Nicole Hall |
| 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.
