Blankinship v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Plaintiff: James Blankinship
Defendant: Union Pacific Railroad Company
Case Number: 4:2021cv00072
Filed: February 10, 2021
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Rosemary Marquez
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ANSWER to #13 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Union Pacific Railroad Company.(Goldsmith, Mark)
April 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 20 OPENING BRIEF by Union Pacific Railroad Company in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Goldsmith, Mark)
April 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Partial) First Amended Complaint by Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Goldsmith, Mark)
March 30, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER GRANTING parties' Joint #17 MOTION continue. The telephonic Pretrial Scheduling Conference is continued to 5/14/21 at 10:30 am, before law clerk to Judge Rosemary Marquez. The conference shall be initiated by Plaintiff, with all appropriate parties on the line. The parties are directed to continue their meet-and-confer efforts and to file their Joint Report on or before 5/7/21. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/29/21.(BAC)
March 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 17 Joint MOTION continuance Pretrial Scheduling Conference and related dates re: #11 Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings, Set Deadlines by Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldsmith, Mark)
March 26, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7 ) is denied without prejudice and with leave to re-file. (review attached Order for details). Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/26/2021. (MCO)
March 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 15 DECLARATION of Gavin S. Barney re: #14 Response in Opposition to Motion . filed by James Blankinship. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Barney, Gavin)
March 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 14 RESPONSE in Opposition re: #7 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Partial) Plaintiff's Brief filed by James Blankinship. (Barney, Gavin)
March 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Damages against Union Pacific Railroad Company filed by James Blankinship.(Barney, Gavin)
March 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 12 NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(b) by James Blankinship First Amended Complaint. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Barney, Gavin)
March 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Scott Parrish Moore on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
March 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER: A telephonic Pretrial Scheduling Conference is set for 4/16/21, at 10:30 am. Counsel shall file with the Court, on or before 4/9/21, a Joint Report. All parties are expected to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, and to minimize the expense of discovery. Counsel should ensure that all documents filed with the Court comply with LRCiv. 7.1 and 7.2. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may lead to sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). (See attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/12/21.(BAC)
March 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Union Pacific Railroad Company identifying Corporate Parent Union Pacific Corporation for Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Goldsmith, Mark)
March 11, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Union Pacific Railroad Company.(Goldsmith, Mark)
March 11, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 8 OPENING BRIEF by Union Pacific Railroad Company Brief in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss (FRCP 12(B)(6). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Goldsmith, Mark)
March 11, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Partial) by Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Goldsmith, Mark)
March 11, 2021 Opinion or Order Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Mark Joseph Goldsmith on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
February 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by James Blankinship: Proof of Service re: Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Summons, Magistrate Notice upon Union Pacific Railroad Company on 02/18/2021. (Petru, Anthony)
February 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Gavin S Barney on behalf of Plaintiff James Blankinship. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
February 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Lucas J Kaster on behalf of Plaintiff James Blankinship. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
February 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Remark: Pro hac vice motion(s) granted for Anthony S Petru, James H Kaster on behalf of Plaintiff James Blankinship. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS)
February 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #1 Complaint filed by James Blankinship. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ARC)
February 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Union Pacific Railroad Company. (ARC). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
February 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-19150403. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Rosemary Marquez. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-21-72-TUC-RM. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (ARC)
February 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by James Blankinship. (Schlesinger, David) (ARC)
February 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number 0970-19150403 filed by James Blankinship. (Schlesinger, David) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ARC)

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: Blankinship v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Union Pacific Railroad Company
Represented By: Mark Joseph Goldsmith
Represented By: Scott Parrish Moore
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 ]
Plaintiff: James Blankinship
Represented By: Lucas Kaster
Represented By: James H Kaster
Represented By: David Einer Schlesinger
Represented By: Gavin Barney
Represented By: Anthony S Petru
Represented By: Gavin S Barney
Represented By: Lucas J Kaster
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?