Carson v. Lacy et al
| Arthur Carson |
| Roger Lacy, Laidlaw & Lacy Inc, Corporation Service Co, First Advantage Background Services Corporation and Roger Lacy doing business as D & B Janitorial Services |
| 4:2018cv00692 |
| September 19, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Brian S Miller |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 11, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
JUDGMENT: Consistent with #17 the order entered today, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/11/2018. (kdr)
|
|
Filing 17
ORDER granting #10 Plaintiff Arthur Carson's motion to voluntarily dismiss; and dismissing the case without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/11/2018. (kdr)
|
| Filing 16 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER:Rule 26(f) Conference to occur by 12/4/2018. Rule 26(f) Report due by 12/18/2018. Jury Trial set for sometime during the week of 9/9/2019 at 09:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom # 2D before Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. Signed at the Direction of the Court on 10/9/18. (lp) |
| Filing 15 BRIEF in Support of Plaintiff's #10 Motion to Dismiss, Alternatively, Request to Hold Complaint in Abeyance filed by Arthur Carson. (jap) |
| Filing 14 REPLY to Response to Motion re #10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Arthur Carson. (fjg) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by First Advantage Background Services Corporation. (Spak, Jason) |
| Filing 12 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re #11 Response to Motion filed by Roger Lacy, Laidlaw & Lacy Inc. (Mehdizadegan, Abtin) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE to Motion re #10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Roger Lacy, Laidlaw & Lacy Inc. (Mehdizadegan, Abtin) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Arthur Carson (jap) |
| Filing 9 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re #8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by First Advantage Background Services Corporation. (Spak, Jason) |
| Filing 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by First Advantage Background Services Corporation (Attachments: #1 Exhibit One, #2 Exhibit Two)(Spak, Jason) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: #1 Notice of Removal. CORRECTION: The original document was attached to the docket in error (additional pages included) due to a clerical mistake by the Clerk's office. The correct document was added as an attachment to docket entry #1 and is attached hereto for review by the parties. (thd) |
| Filing 4 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re #3 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Roger Lacy, Laidlaw & Lacy Inc. (Mehdizadegan, Abtin) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss by Roger Lacy, Laidlaw & Lacy Inc (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Exhibit)(Mehdizadegan, Abtin) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa McJunkins Duke on behalf of Roger Lacy and Laidlaw & Lacy Inc. (thd) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Abtin Mehdizadegan on behalf of Roger Lacy and Laidlaw & Lacy Inc. (thd) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants, filed by Arthur Carson.(kdr) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Roger Lacy and Laidlaw & Lacy Inc from Pulaski County Circuit Court, Case Number 60CV-18-5582. Fee of $400 paid. Receipt Number LIT068865. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(kdr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/20/2018: #2 Main Document - Correct) (thd). |
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
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.
