Rabah v. DoorDash Inc
| Aaron Rabah |
| DoorDash Inc |
| 3:2021cv00235 |
| November 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| James M Moody |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 30, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #8 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order by first class mail to Aaron Rabah at 139 Greene Road 527, Paragould, Arkansas 72436. Plaintiff is directed to either advise the Court in writing that he intends to represent himself and provide his current address and phone numbers or have another attorney enter an appearance on his behalf. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 3/30/2022. (jak)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Aaron Rabah (Burks, Christopher) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #6 Motion to compel arbitration. This action is stayed pending arbitration. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 2/15/2022. (jak)
|
| Filing 6 Joint MOTION to Stay Pending Arbitration by DoorDash Inc (Madison, Eva) |
| Filing 5 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER:Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 4/27/2022; Rule 26(f) Report due by 5/11/2022. Proposed Jury Trial set sometime during the week of 4/3/2023 at 9:15 AM in Jonesboro Courtroom (large) # 324 before Judge James M. Moody Jr. Signed at the Direction of the Court on 1/31/2022. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Final Scheduling Order)(kog) |
|
Filing 4
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting #3 Motion to Extend Time to file an Answer. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 1/13/2022. (sjh)
|
| Filing 3 Unopposed MOTION to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint by DoorDash Inc (Madison, Eva) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Eva C. Madison on behalf of DoorDash Inc (Madison, Eva) |
| NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re #1 Complaint. CORRECTION: The docket text was modified to include reference to the Jury demand as marked on the document. (jak) |
| Filing 1 CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT with Jury demand against DoorDash Inc filed by Aaron Rabah. Fee $402; Receipt No. JON001014. Summons issued and returned to counsel for service. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(wbb) (Docket text modified on 11/12/2021 to include reference to the Jury demand) (jak) |
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 Arkansas Eastern 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
| Search for this case: Rabah v. DoorDash Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Aaron Rabah | |
| Represented By: | Christopher Wesley Burks |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: DoorDash Inc | |
| Represented By: | Eva C. Madison |
| 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.
