Yevich v. Inframark, LLC
| Julie Yevich |
| Inframark, LLC |
| 8:2024cv02108 |
| September 6, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Natalie Hirt Adams |
| Kathryn Kimball Mizelle |
| Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 2601 Family Medical Leave Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 21, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ENDORSED ORDER: The Plaintiff filed a #13 stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court previously closed this case based on the parties' #9 Notice of Settlement. Because of the self-executing nature of the parties' stipulation, the Court need not take further action. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 11/21/2024. (KMP)
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of voluntary dismissal by Julie Yevich (Schmitz, Gregory) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Local Rule 1.11(e), which provides that, unless an order states another time, a seal under Rule 1.11 expires ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. To prevent the content of a sealed item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (LNR) |
|
Filing 11
ENDORSED ORDER: The Plaintiff announces a #9 settlement. Under Local Rule 3.09(b), this action is DISMISSED subject to the right of any party within sixty days (1) to submit a stipulated form of final order or (2) to move to vacate the dismissal for good cause. The clerk is directed to CLOSE the case and TERMINATE any pending motions. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 10/4/2024. (KMP)
|
|
Filing 10
ENDORSED ORDER: In the light of the #9 Notice of Settlement filed after the Clerk closed this case, the Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case. Once the case is reopened, the Court will file the standard sixty-day order, and accordingly close the case. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 10/3/2024. (KMP)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of settlement by Julie Yevich (Schmitz, Gregory) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Local Rule 1.11(e), which provides that, unless an order states another time, a seal under Rule 1.11 expires ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. To prevent the content of a sealed item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (GL) |
| Filing 7 JUDGMENT dismissing this case without prejudice. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 10/2/2024. (GL) |
|
Filing 6
ENDORSED ORDER: On September 20, 2024, Plaintiff failed to submit a Corporate Disclosure Statement as required by the #4 Civil Case Standing Order. This Court provided Plaintiff with a time extension but informed the Plaintiff that this action would become subject to dismissal without further notice if Plaintiff failed to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement by September 27, 2024. Plaintiff also failed to respond to this Order. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 3.10. The Clerk is directed to ENTER judgment, which shall read "This case is dismissed without prejudice," terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 10/1/2024. (KMP)
|
|
Filing 5
ENDORSED ORDER: The #4 Civil Case Standing Order requires parties to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement within fourteen (14) days after appearing. Plaintiff fails to comply. Plaintiff must file the Corporate Disclosure Statement by September 27, 2024, or this case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 9/24/2024. (KMP)
|
|
Filing 4
CIVIL CASE STANDING ORDER. The Parties shall meet and file a Case Management Report using the standard form on the Court's website within forty days after any Defendant appears. Each Party must also file a Corporate Disclosure Statement using the standard template attached to this Order (also available on the undersigned's website under the "forms" tab) within fourteen days (14) after appearing. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 9/11/2024. (KMP)
|
| Filing 3 SUMMONS issued as to Inframark, LLC. (BD) |
| Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle and Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams. New case number: 8:24-cv-02108-KKM-NHA. (JOS) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Inframark LLC with Jury Demand (Filing fee $405 receipt number BFLMDC-22489944) filed by Julie Yevich. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons)(Schmitz, Gregory) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Yevich v. Inframark, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Inframark, LLC | |
| 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: Julie Yevich | |
| Represented By: | Gregory R. Schmitz |
| 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.
