Doe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
Plaintiff: John Doe
Defendant: Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
Case Number: 5:2021cv02602
Filed: April 9, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Presiding Judge: Nathanael M Cousins
Referring Judge: Beth Labson Freeman
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 26, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AFTER REASSIGNMENT. Case Management Statement due by 7/29/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/5/2021 11:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2021)
April 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Beth Labson Freeman for all further proceedings. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins remains as referral judge assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk on 4/23/2021. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2021)
April 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 8 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2021)
April 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by John Doe.. (Kosbie, Jeffrey) (Filed on 4/22/2021)
April 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company.. (Benton, Christopher) (Filed on 4/22/2021)
April 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case may fall within the Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. See #General Order 71. Parties and Counsel are directed to review General Order 71 to determine whether it applies to this case, and to comply with that General Order if applicable. Case Management Statement due by 7/7/2 021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/14/2021 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor. (sfbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2021)
April 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert James Wilger Notice of Appearance of Counsel of Record (Wilger, Robert) (Filed on 4/12/2021)
April 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. 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 4/23/2021. (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2021)
April 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 NOTICE by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company re #1 Notice of Removal, (Notice of Interested Parties) (Benton, Christopher) (Filed on 4/9/2021)
April 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Their case number is 21CV377848. (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0971-15819172). Filed byProgressive Casualty Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit B to Notice of Removal, #3 Declaration of Benton, #4 Declaration of Davis, #5 Civil Cover Sheet, #6 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Benton, Christopher) (Filed on 4/9/2021)

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: Doe v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Doe
Represented By: Steven M. Tindall
Represented By: Jeffrey B. Kosbie
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: Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
Represented By: Christopher Thomas Benton
Represented By: Robert James Wilger
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?