Espino v. Tucson, City of et al
| Blanca Espino |
| Sylvia Cole, Tucson, City of, City of Tucson Department of Transportation and Daryl Cole |
| 4:2019cv00242 |
| April 30, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Raner C Collins |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER pursuant to #9 Stipulation of Dismissal: IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Senior Judge Raner C Collins on 6/24/19.(BAC)
|
| Filing 9 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Daryl Cole, Tucson, City of. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Saavedra, Michelle) |
|
Filing 8
ORDERED that a Case Management Conference is set for Monday, July 08, 2019 at 9:45 a.m. before Senior Judge Raner C Collins. The parties are directed to meet and confer at least twenty-one (21) days before the Case Management Conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). At this meeting, the parties shall develop a joint Case Management Report. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management Report with the Court no later than seven (7) days prior to the Case Management Conference. Signed by Senior Judge Raner C Collins on 5/31/2019. (see Order for complete details) (ARC)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE re: Service of Defendant City of Tucson's Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff by Tucson, City of . (Saavedra, Michelle) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Daryl Cole, Tucson, City of.(Saavedra, Michelle) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER GRANTING Defendants' #4 Motion for Extension to File Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants may file an answer on or before 5/27/19. No further extensions will be granted. Signed by Senior Judge Raner C Collins on 5/7/19. (BAC)
|
| Filing 4 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Daryl Cole, Tucson, City of. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Saavedra, Michelle) |
| Filing 3 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. (BAC) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-16852399. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Raner C Collins. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-19-00242-TUC-RCC. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached.(BAC) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Pima County Superior Court, case number C20191611. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number 0970-16852399 filed by City of Tucson Department of Transportation, Tucson, City of, Daryl Cole. (Saavedra, Michelle) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit A State Court Record)(BAC) |
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.
