MUNOZ v. TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC et al
Plaintiff: SANTIAGO RAMOS MUNOZ
Defendant: TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC and CHRIS M. PAPPAS
Case Number: 1:2021cv02789
Filed: October 20, 2021
Court: US District Court for the District of Columbia
Presiding Judge: Beryl A Howell
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 216
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by CHRIS M. PAPPAS, TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC.(Burton, Meighan)
November 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer to the Complaint due by 12/17/2021. (ztg)
November 19, 2021 Opinion or Order MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's #7 Consent Motion to Extend the Deadline for Defendants to Answer the Complaint. Accordingly, the defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint by December 17, 2021. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 19, 2021. (lcbah3)
November 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #6 Summons Returned Executed, #5 Summons Returned Executed by SANTIAGO RAMOS MUNOZ. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Balashov, Andrew)
November 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC served on 11/16/2021, answer due 12/7/2021 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Melehy, Omar)
November 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CHRIS M. PAPPAS served on 11/16/2021, answer due 12/7/2021 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Melehy, Omar)
October 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 STANDING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 22, 2021. (lcbah3)
October 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 SUMMONS (2) Issued Electronically as to CHRIS M. PAPPAS, TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC. (Attachments: #1 Notice and Consent)(adh, )
October 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Case Assigned to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell.
October 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-8813910) filed by SANTIAGO RAMOS MUNOZ. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Summons)(Melehy, Omar)

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 District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MUNOZ v. TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: SANTIAGO RAMOS MUNOZ
Represented By: Omar Vincent Melehy
Represented By: Andrew George Balashov
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: TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC
Represented By: Meighan G. Burton
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: CHRIS M. PAPPAS
Represented By: Meighan G. Burton
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?