Silman v. Swift Transportation Incorporated et al
| Craig Silman |
| Swift Transportation Incorporated, Interstate Equipment Leasing, Unknown Parties and Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC |
| 2:2023cv02624 |
| December 15, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Dominic W Lanza |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 23
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's unopposed motion (Doc. #21 ) is granted. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Request for Preliminary Injunction no later than February 29, 2024. Plaintiff shall file his reply no later than March 30, 2024. Ordered by Judge Dominic W Lanza.(SLQ)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
|
| Filing 22 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC identifying Corporate Parent Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. for Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC. (Lockner, Ryan) |
| Filing 21 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #14 Amended Complaint , First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #12 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Lockner, Ryan) |
|
Filing 20
ORDER - Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss Defendant Swift Transportation, Inc., without prejudice. (Doc. #19 .) This Defendant was not renamed in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") (Doc. #14 ) and was therefore dropped as a party on the date the FAC was filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. #19 ) is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall promptly file proof in the form of a process server's affidavit that Defendant Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC has been served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1); Doc. #17 at 2. Ordered by Judge Dominic W Lanza.(SLQ)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
|
| Filing 19 MOTION to Dismiss Party Swift Transportation Incorporated by Craig Silman. (KJ) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Errata by Plaintiff Craig Silman. (KJ) |
|
Filing 17
PRELIMINARY ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. That Plaintiff(s) must promptly serve a copy of this Order on Defendant(s) and file a notice of service with the Clerk of Court; 2. That, unless the Court orders otherwise, on March 15, 2024, 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 document for complete details). Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 1/9/2024. (SLQ)
|
| Filing 16 Summons Issued as to Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC and provided to plaintiff at counter. (BAS) |
| Filing 15 SUMMONS Submitted by Craig Silman at counter. (BAS) |
| Filing 14 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC filed by Craig Silman. (4 pages) (EJA) |
| Filing 13 Summons Issued as to Interstate Equipment Leasing, Swift Transportation Incorporated and provided to plaintiff at counter. (BAS) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Craig Silman. (KJ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2024: #1 Exhibit) (KJ). |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Party Dismissal titled "Request to Dismiss Defendant Interstate Equipment Leasing without Prejudice" by Craig Silman. Party Interstate Equipment Leasing terminated. (KJ) |
| Filing 10 Filing fee PAID IN FULL. (KJ) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #2 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay the filing fee by January 12, 2024. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court, without further notice, shall dismiss this case without prejudice if Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by January 12, 2024. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. #3 ) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may submit a renewed request for injunctive relief, with notice to Defendant, if and when he pays the filing fee. (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 12/18/2023. (SLQ)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT re informational documents attached: (1) Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, (2) Federal Court Self-Service Clinic Flyer, (3) Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, and (4) Notice and Request re Electronic Noticing. (BAS) |
| Filing 7 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Dominic W.. Lanza. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV23-02624-PHX-DWL. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (BAS) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Submitted by Craig Silman. (BAS) |
| Filing 5 DECLARATION of Craig Silman re: #4 Memorandum by Plaintiff Craig Silman. (BAS) |
| Filing 4 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities in Support of #3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Craig Silman. (BAS) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Under FRCP Rule 65 by Craig Silman. (BAS) |
| Filing 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Craig Silman. (BAS) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Craig Silman.(BAS) |
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.
