Loreto v. Arizona Board of Regents et al
| Angelica M Loreto |
| Arizona Board of Regents doing business as University of Arizona and Denise Moynihan |
| 4:2022cv00269 |
| June 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| D Thomas Ferraro |
| James A Soto |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants shall have until on or before August 12, 2022, to respond to the Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro on 07/13/2022. (SCA)
|
| Filing 9 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #1 Notice of Removal, Stipulation for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by Arizona Board of Regents, Denise Moynihan. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Order)(McKay, Neil) |
|
Filing 8
ORDERED the Stipulation (Doc. #6 ) is granted. Defendants shall have until July 15, 2022, to respond to the Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro on 6/15/2022. (MCO)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER: this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge D Thomas Ferraro for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. All future filings in this case shall be designated: No. CV-22-00269-TUC-JAS-DTF. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 6/14/2022. (MCO)
|
| Filing 6 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by Arizona Board of Regents, Denise Moynihan. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(McKay, Neil) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(b), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge. IT IS ORDERED this case is reassigned by random draw to District Judge James A Soto. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV-22-269-TUC-JAS. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DLC) |
| Filing 4 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DLC) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee paid, receipt number AAZDC-20750711. This case has been assigned to the Honorable D Thomas Ferraro. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-22-00269-TUC-DTF. Magistrate Election form attached. PLEASE NOTE: Plaintiff(s) and defendants that have already appeared in this case are required to file the attached Magistrate Election form within FOURTEEN (14) days of this filing. Please read attached instructions. (BAC) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Pima County Superior Court, case number C20221653. Filing fee received: $402.00, receipt number AAZDC-20750711 filed by Denise Moynihan, Arizona Board of Regents. (McKay, Neil) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5, #8 Exhibit 6)(BAC) |
| ***STATE COURT RECORDS RECEIVED***SERVICE EXECUTED: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Rule 102a Fastar Certificate upon Arizona Board of Regents, University of Arizona Health Sciences Business Manager Denise Moynihan on 5/10/22 (Original filed in Pima County Superior Court on 5/16/22). (BAC) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. |
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.
