Whitaker v. Infusion Software Incorporated
Plaintiff: Mickey Whitaker
Defendant: Infusion Software Incorporated doing business as Keap
Case Number: 2:2022cv00028
Filed: January 7, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: John J Tuchi
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties' Stipulation to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc. #13 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED The above-entitled matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to close this matter. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 4/7/2022. (LAD)
April 5, 2022 Filing 13 STIPULATION of Dismissal without Prejudice by Infusion Software Incorporated. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Van Ranken, Jessica)
March 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Parties' Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (Second Request) (Doc. #11 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline for Defendant to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #1 ) is extended to April 8, 2022. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 3/21/2022. (JAMA)
March 17, 2022 Filing 11 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT re: #1 Complaint (Second Request) by Infusion Software Incorporated. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Van Ranken, Jessica)
March 9, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (Doc. #8 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline for Defendant to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #1 ) is extended to March 22, 2022. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 3/9/2022. (JAMA)
March 9, 2022 Filing 9 *NOTICE re: Plaintiff's Notice of Non-Opposition by Mickey Whitaker re: #8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #1 Complaint . (Rusch, Jacob) *Modified to reflect Local Rule violation; attorney noticed on 3/9/2022 (SST).
March 8, 2022 Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #1 Complaint by Infusion Software Incorporated. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Van Ranken, Jessica)
March 2, 2022 Filing 7 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Mickey Whitaker: Affidavit of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Order (Dkt. 5) upon Infusion Software, Inc. on 2/15/2022. (Kaylor, Zackary)
January 18, 2022 Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Jacob R Rusch on behalf of Plaintiff Mickey Whitaker. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
January 18, 2022 Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Zackary S Kaylor on behalf of Plaintiff Mickey Whitaker. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
January 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate any or all Defendants in this matter, without further notice, that have not been served within the time required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) on April 8, 2022. (See attached Order). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 1/11/2022. (JAMA)
January 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) and motions to strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) are discouraged if the defect that would be the subject of the motion can be cured by filing an amended pleading. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendants. (See attached Order). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 1/11/22. (JAMA)
January 7, 2022 Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Infusion Software Incorporated. (MYE). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
January 7, 2022 Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-20224203. This case has been assigned to the Honorable John J Tuchi. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-22-28-PHX-JJT. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (MYE)
January 7, 2022 Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Mickey Whitaker. (Traulsen, Richard) (MYE)
January 7, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number 0970-20224203 filed by Mickey Whitaker. (Traulsen, Richard) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(MYE)

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: Whitaker v. Infusion Software Incorporated
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mickey Whitaker
Represented By: Richard Phillip Traulsen
Represented By: Jacob R Rusch
Represented By: Zackary S Kaylor
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: Infusion Software Incorporated doing business as Keap
Represented By: Jessica Alice Van Ranken
Represented By: John F Lomax, Jr.
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?