Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation
Plaintiff: Brian Whitaker
Defendant: Starbucks Corporation
Case Number: 3:2021cv03707
Filed: May 18, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Presiding Judge: Thomas S Hixson
Nature of Suit: American with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 21, 2021 Filing 10 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Starbucks Corporation (Cannizzaro, Charles) (Filed on 6/21/2021)
June 21, 2021 Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint byStarbucks Corporation. (Cannizzaro, Charles) (Filed on 6/21/2021)
June 7, 2021 Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Brian Whitaker. Starbucks Corporation served on 5/28/2021, answer due 6/18/2021. (Seabock, Amanda) (Filed on 6/7/2021)
May 19, 2021 Filing 7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Brian Whitaker.. (Seabock, Amanda) (Filed on 5/19/2021)
May 19, 2021 Filing 6 Summons Issued as to Starbucks Corporation. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2021)
May 19, 2021 Filing 5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2021)
May 18, 2021 Filing 4 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 6/1/2021. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2021)
May 18, 2021 Filing 3 Proposed Summons. (Seabock, Amanda) (Filed on 5/18/2021)
May 18, 2021 Filing 2 Certificate of Interested Entities by Brian Whitaker re #1 Complaint (Seabock, Amanda) (Filed on 5/18/2021)
May 18, 2021 Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Damages and Injunctive Relief against Starbucks Corporation (Filing fee $ 402.00, receipt number 0971-15977391.). Filed by Brian Whitaker. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Seabock, Amanda) (Filed on 5/18/2021) Modified on 5/19/2021 (gbaS, COURT STAFF).

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Brian Whitaker
Represented By: Amanda Lockhart Seabock
Represented By: Dennis Jay Price, II
Represented By: Prathima Reddy Price
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: Starbucks Corporation
Represented By: Charles Michael Cannizzaro
Represented By: Ian Tracy Wade
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?