Gastelum v. CPX Phoenix Airport Gateway Opag LLC
| Fernando Gastelum |
| CPX Phoenix Airport Gateway Opag LLC |
| 2:2018cv02070 |
| July 2, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Pinal |
| G Murray Snow |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 2, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 MINUTE ORDER: This case is hereby direct assigned to Judge G Murray Snow for all further proceedings. All future filings shall reflect the following case number: CV-18-2070-PHX-GMS. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Fernando Gastelum. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Strojnik, Peter) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to CPX Phoenix Airport Gateway Opag LLC. (TCA). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and this case is subject to that pilot. The key features and deadlines are set forth in the attached Notice which includes General Order 17-08. Also attached is a checklist for use by the parties. All parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the General Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the General Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the attached documents (Notice to Parties, including General Order 17-08 and MIDP Checklist) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (TCA) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-15678710. This case has been assigned to the Honorable H Russel Holland. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-18-2070-PHX-HRH. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (TCA) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Fernando Gastelum.(Submitted by Peter Strojnik) (TCA) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-15678710 filed by Fernando Gastelum.(Submitted by Peter Strojnik) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(TCA) |
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 Arizona 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: Gastelum v. CPX Phoenix Airport Gateway Opag LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: CPX Phoenix Airport Gateway Opag LLC | |
| Represented By: | Kami Marie Hoskins |
| 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: Fernando Gastelum | |
| Represented By: | Peter Strojnik |
| 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.
