Cole et al v. Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLC
| Joleen Cole and David Cole |
| Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLC |
| 3:2020cv08030 |
| February 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Diane J Humetewa |
| Personal Injury: Marine |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1333 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 12, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: A Scheduling Conference set for 5/19/2020 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 605, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Diane J Humetewa. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 3/10/2020. (CLB)
|
| Filing 8 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLC identifying Corporate Parent Aramark, Corporate Parent Aramark Sports and Entertainment Group LLC, Corporate Parent Aramark Service Incorporated, Corporate Parent Aramark/HMS, LLC, Corporate Parent ARAMARK Intermediate Holdco Corporation for Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLC. (Fedeli, Thomas) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLC.(Fedeli, Thomas) |
| Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Thomas M Fedeli and Terence S Cox on behalf of Defendant Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLC. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. The parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. ORDERED that Plaintiff(s) serve a copy of this Order upon Defendant and file a notice of service. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 2/6/2020. (LFIG)
|
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services LLC. (MCO). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
| 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) |
| Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-17919862. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Diane J Humetewa. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-20-8030-PCT-DJH. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise form attached. (MCO) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by David Cole, Joleen Cole. (Watkins, Joseph) (MCO) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-17919862 filed by David Cole, Joleen Cole. (Watkins, Joseph) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(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 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.
