Davis v. HDR Incorporated
| Carol Davis |
| HDR Incorporated |
| 2:2021cv01903 |
| November 10, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Steven P Logan |
| Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 2510 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 25, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER that the Stipulation (Doc. #9 ) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. The Stipulation is granted as to Defendant's answer deadline. Defendant shall have until 1/14/2022 to file an answer to the Complaint and otherwise respond as provided by Rule 12. 2. The Stipulation is denied without prejudice as to responsive deadlines to a potential Rule 12 motion. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 12/3/2021. (RMW)
|
| Filing 9 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT by HDR Incorporated. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Wheeler, Travis) |
| Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Neal J Deckant, Joshua D Arisohn on behalf of Plaintiff Carol Davis. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) |
| Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Alec M Leslie on behalf of Plaintiff Carol Davis. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Service of Preliminary Order by Carol Davis re: #5 Order. (Barrett, Gerald) |
| Filing 7 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Carol Davis: Affidavit of Service re: Preliminary Order upon HDR, Inc. on 11/15/2021. (Barrett, Gerald) |
| Filing 6 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Carol Davis: Affidavit of Service re: Summons, Class Action Complaint, Notice of Availability of a US Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction; Civil Coversheet upon HDR, Inc. on 11/12/2021. (Barrett, Gerald) |
| Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Max Stuart Roberts on behalf of Plaintiff Carol Davis. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER (PRELIMINARY) - (1) That Plaintiff(s) must file proof of service of the summons and complaint or of waiver of service with the Clerk of Court no later than 2/8/22; (2) That Plaintiff(s) must promptly serve a copy of this Order on Defendant(s) and file notice of service with the Clerk of Court; and (3) That unless the Court orders otherwise, on 2/8/22, the Clerk of Court shall terminate without further notice any Defendant in this action that has not been served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See order for details. Signed by Judge Steven P. Logan on 11/10/21. (NKS)
|
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to HDR Incorporated. (JAM). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-20058154. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Steven P Logan. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-21-1903-PHX-SPL. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (JAM) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Carol Davis. (Barrett, Gerald) (JAM) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number 0970-20058154 filed by Carol Davis. (Barrett, Gerald) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(JAM) |
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
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.
