Davis v. Advance Services, Inc. et al
| Duriel Davis |
| Advance Services, Inc., Archer-Daniel-Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM Rice, Inc., ADM Milling Company, Rush Personnel Services, Inc., Johnny Barnett, Janette Escalante, Matthew House, Omar Rosales and Carlos Guerrera |
| 2:2022cv00343 |
| February 22, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Morrison C England |
| Jeremy D Peterson |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Job Discrimination (Race) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Advance Services, Inc. served on 4/13/2022, answer due 5/4/2022. (Winter, Grant) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 VDRP) (Huang, H) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *ADM Milling Company, ADM Rice, Inc., Advance Services, Inc., Archer Daniels Midland Company, Archer-Daniel-Midland Co., Johnny Barnett, Janette Escalante, Carlos Guerrera, Matthew House, Omar Rosales, Rush Personnel Services, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Grant A. Winter* *Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C.* *1912 I Street* *Sacramento, CA 95811*. (Huang, H) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Duriel Davis. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-10087045) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Winter, Grant) |
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 California 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.
