Shoults v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated
Plaintiff: Chad Shoults
Defendant: G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated
Case Number: 2:2019cv02408
Filed: April 15, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Camille D Bibles
Referring Judge: G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 201
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 3, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 16 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) filed by Plaintiff Chad Shoults. (Frankel, Ty)
July 3, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 15 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) filed by Defendant G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated. (Mihelick, John)
June 11, 2019 Opinion or Order Remark: Pro hac vice motion granted for Kelly Eisenlohr-Moul on behalf of defendant. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
June 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER SETTING RULE 16 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference set for 8/2/2019 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Chief Judge G Murray Snow. See document for further details. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 6/5/19. (GMP)
June 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(b), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge. FURTHER ORDERED Case reassigned by random draw to Judge G. Murray Snow. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV-19-2408-PHX-GMS. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP)
June 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP)
June 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 11 Corporate Disclosure Statement by G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated. (Hoskins, Kami)
June 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ANSWER to #1 Complaint DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO by G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated.(Hoskins, Kami)
June 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Remark: Pro hac vice motion granted for John Travis Mihelick on behalf of defendant. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
May 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 8 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Chad Shoults: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Notice to Parties Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project, Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction (signed) upon G4S Secure Solutions, (USA) Inc. on 05/15/2019. (Frankel, Ty)
April 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 Agreement to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Party agrees to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP)
April 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 Summons Issued as to G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated. (MCO). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
April 15, 2019 Opinion or Order 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. (MCO)
April 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-16787671. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Camille D Bibles. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-19-2408-PHX-CDB. Magistrate Election form attached. (MCO)
April 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Chad Shoults. (Frankel, Ty) (MCO)
April 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-16787671 filed by Chad Shoults. (Frankel, Ty) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit)(MCO)

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 this case: Shoults v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chad Shoults
Represented By: Ty Derek Frankel
Represented By: Patricia Nicole Syverson
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: G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Incorporated
Represented By: Kelly Eisenlohr-Moul
Represented By: Kami Marie Hoskins
Represented By: John Travis Mihelick
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?