Miner v. Phoenix, City of et al
Kimberly Miner |
Phoenix, City of, Kayla Jonagan and Marsalis Smith |
2:2022cv01208 |
July 19, 2022 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Michael T Morrissey (PS) |
Susan M Brnovich |
Michael T Morrissey |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 16, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 11 REPLY to Response to Motion re: #3 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Kayla Jonagan, Phoenix, City of, Marsalis Smith. (Stillwell, Karen) |
Filing 10 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Kimberly Miner: Rule 4 Waiver of Service of Summons. Waiver sent on July 12, 2022 to Defendant Kayla Jonagan . (Showalter, Jesse) |
Filing 9 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Kimberly Miner: Rule 4 Waiver of Service of Summons. Waiver sent on July 12, 2022 to Defendant Marsalis Smith . (Showalter, Jesse) |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Karen Johnson Stillwell on behalf of Kayla Jonagan, Phoenix, City of, Marsalis Smith. (Stillwell, Karen) |
Filing 7 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff shall file proof of service or the waiver of service for Defendants Jonagan and Smith no later than September 7, 2022. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defense counsel shall file a notice of appearance on behalf of Defendants Jonagan and Smith no later than September 7, 2022. (See document for full details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T Morrissey on 8/31/2022. (LAD) |
Filing 6 RESPONSE in Opposition re: #3 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Kimberly Miner. (Showalter, Jesse) |
Filing 5 ORDER - The parties' Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines (Doc. #4 ) is granted. Plaintiff has until August 23, 2022, to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Defendants may file a reply on or before September 16, 2022. Any answer, response, or reply must state the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). This matter is assigned to the standard track pursuant to Rule 16.2(b)(3) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Susan M Brnovich on 8/10/2022. (LAD) |
Filing 4 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #3 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Kimberly Miner. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Showalter, Jesse) |
Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Phoenix, City of. (Stillwell, Karen) |
Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (JAM) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV2021-007857. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number AAZDC-20893034 filed by Phoenix, City of. (Stillwell, Karen) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B)(JAM) |
***STATE COURT RECORD RECEIVED***SERVICE EXECUTED: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration upon City of Phoenix on 5/14/21. (Original filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on 5/17/21.) (JAM) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. |
***STATE COURT RECORDS RECEIVED*** ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Phoenix, City of. (Original filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on 7/8/21.) AMENDED ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Phoenix, City of. (Original filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on 7/29/2021.)(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.