Verga v. Unifirst Corporation
| Eloise Verga |
| Unifirst Corporation |
| 8:2021cv01000 |
| April 27, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Charlene Edwards Honeywell |
| Julie S Sneed |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 4, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER: 1. Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings #10 is GRANTED. 2. The parties are compelled to arbitrate Plaintiff Eloise Verga's claims against Defendant Unifirst Corporation. 3. This case is STAYED pending the arbitration of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant. 4. The parties shall file a status report every sixty (60) days to keep the Court informed of the progress of the arbitration. Additionally, the parties shall file a notice informing the Court that the arbitration has been concluded, or that their dispute has otherwise been resolved, within ten days of either of such events. 5. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and administratively close this file. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 6/4/2021. (GLP)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Ignacio J. Garcia on behalf of Unifirst Corporation (Garcia, Ignacio) |
| Filing 10 Unopposed MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings by Unifirst Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Arbitration Agmt. (Verga))(Generotti, Stephanie) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. |
| Filing 9 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Notice to Counsel of Local Rule by Eloise Verga. (Harne, Alexander) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Eloise Verga. Related case(s): No (Harne, Alexander) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander Thomas Harne on behalf of Eloise Verga (Harne, Alexander) |
| Filing 6 RETURN of service executed on 4/28/21 by Eloise Verga as to Unifirst Corporation. (Storch, Noah) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE informing the parties that they may consent to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge by filing Form AO 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge using the event Consent to Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (BGS) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE to Counsel of Local Rule 1.07(c), Local Rule 3.02(a)(2), and Local Rule 3.03. -Local Rule 1.07(c) requires lead counsel to promptly file a Notice of a Related Action that identifies and describes any related action pending in the Middle District. -Local Rule 3.02(a)(2) requires the parties in every civil proceeding, except those described in subsection (d), to file a case management report (CMR) using the uniform form at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The CMR must be filed (1) within forty days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within forty days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within seventy days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, its agencies or employees. Judges may have a special CMR form for certain types of cases. These forms can be found at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under the Forms tab for each judge. -Local Rule 3.03 requires each party to file a disclosure statement with the first appearance that identifies (1) each person that has or might have an interest in the outcome, (2) each entity with publicly traded shares or debt potentially affected by the outcome, (3) each additional entity likely to actively participate, and (4) each person arguably eligible for restitution. The disclosure statement must include this certification - I certify that, except as disclosed, I am unaware of an actual or potential conflict of interest affecting the district judge or the magistrate judge in this action, and I will immediately notify the judge in writing within fourteen days after I know of a conflict. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (BGS) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS issued as to Unifirst Corporation. (MCB) |
| Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell and Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. New case number: 8:21-cv-1000-CEH-JSS. (LRB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Unifirst Corporation with Jury Demand (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AFLMDC-18185378) filed by Eloise Verga. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons)(Storch, Noah) |
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: Verga v. Unifirst Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Unifirst Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Ignacio J. Garcia |
| Represented By: | Stephanie Generotti |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Eloise Verga | |
| Represented By: | Noah E. Storch |
| Represented By: | Alexander Thomas Harne |
| 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.
