Drake v. Dynamic Security, Inc.
| Freda Drake |
| Dynamic Security, Inc. |
| 8:2018cv02744 |
| November 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Charlene Edwards Honeywell |
| Christopher P Tuite |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 4, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 22
ENDORSED ORDER granting #21 Plaintiff's Third Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to #11 Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. Plaintiff's response is due on or before 1/11/2019. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 1/4/2019. (AHA)
|
| Filing 21 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #11 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike by Freda Drake. (Fraley, Mitchell) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. |
|
Filing 20
ENDORSED ORDER granting #17 Plaintiff's Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to #11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. Plaintiff's response is due on or before 1/4/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 12/21/2018. (AHA)
|
| Filing 19 RESPONSE to Motion re #16 MOTION to Strike Jury Trial Demand filed by Freda Drake. (Fraley, Mitchell) |
| Filing 18 RESPONSE in Opposition re #13 MOTION to remand to State Court filed by Dynamic Security, Inc.. (Kalteux, David) |
| Filing 17 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #11 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike by Freda Drake. (Fraley, Mitchell) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. |
| Filing 16 MOTION to Strike Jury Trial Demand by Dynamic Security, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Kalteux, David) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. Modified on 12/12/2018 (DG). |
| Filing 15 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Kalteux, David) |
|
Filing 14
ENDORSED ORDER granting #12 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to #11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. Response is due on or before 12/24/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 12/10/2018. (AHA)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION to remand to State Court by Freda Drake. (Fraley, Mitchell) |
| Filing 12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #11 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike by Freda Drake. (Fraley, Mitchell) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Dismiss and Motion to Strike by Dynamic Security, Inc.. (Kalteux, David) |
| Filing 10 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint with Jury Demand by Dynamic Security, Inc..(Kalteux, David) |
| Filing 9 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re #2 Related case order and track 2 notice by Dynamic Security, Inc.. (Kalteux, David) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of pendency of related cases per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Dynamic Security, Inc.. (Kalteux, David) |
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re #3 Interested persons order by Freda Drake. (Fraley, Mitchell) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of pendency of related cases per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Freda Drake. Related case(s): no (Fraley, Mitchell) |
|
Filing 5
ENDORSED ORDER granting #4 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Defendant Dynamic Security, Inc.'s answer or response is due on or before 11/26/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 11/15/2018. (AHA)
|
| Filing 4 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Notice of Removal by Dynamic Security, Inc.. (Kalteux, David) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. |
|
Filing 3
INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER. Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement due by 11/23/2018. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 11/8/2018. (BGS)
|
|
Filing 2
RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 11/23/2018. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 11/8/2018. (BGS)
|
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from the 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, case number 18-6753-CI filed in State Court on 10/15/2018. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number TPA054044 filed by Dynamic Security, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(CTR) |
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 Florida Middle 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
| Search for this case: Drake v. Dynamic Security, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Freda Drake | |
| Represented By: | Mitchell L. Fraley |
| 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: Dynamic Security, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Edward B. Carlstedt |
| Represented By: | David Michael Kalteux |
| 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.
