Alvarez v. City of Hollywood
| Thais Alvarez |
| City of Hollywood |
| 0:2023cv60519 |
| March 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Raag Singhal |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 15, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
PAPERLESS ORDER granting #17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is due by 6/7/2023. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 5/15/2023. (am00)
|
| Filing 17 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #16 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens Count II MOTION to Strike Certain Damages Claims by Thais Alvarez. (Pierre, Faudlin) |
| Filing 16 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss #1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens Count II, MOTION to Strike Certain Damages Claims ( Responses due by 5/17/2023) by City of Hollywood. (Behnke, Lindsay) |
| Filing 15 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 16.1 by City of Hollywood (Behnke, Lindsay) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lindsay Marie Behnke on behalf of City of Hollywood. Attorney Lindsay Marie Behnke added to party City of Hollywood(pty:dft). (Behnke, Lindsay) |
| Filing 13 Defendant's Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement - NONE disclosed by City of Hollywood (Flanigan, Anne) |
| Filing 12 Defendant's Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement by City of Hollywood (Abbott, Daniel) |
|
Filing 11
Order Requiring Joint Scheduling Report Joint Scheduling Report due by 4/25/2023 Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 4/5/2023. See attached document for full details. (cqs)
|
|
Filing 10
PAPERLESS ORDER granting #9 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Answer to a Complaint or Other Case Initiating Document. City of Hollywood's Response/Answer is due 5/3/2023. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 4/5/2023. (am00)
|
| Filing 9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Complaint 42 USC 1983 or Bivens Defendant, City of Hollywood's Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time To Respond To The Complaint by City of Hollywood. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order proposed Order)(Abbott, Daniel) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Anne Reilly Flanigan on behalf of City of Hollywood. Attorney Anne Reilly Flanigan added to party City of Hollywood(pty:dft). (Flanigan, Anne) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Daniel Lawrence Abbott on behalf of City of Hollywood. Attorney Daniel Lawrence Abbott added to party City of Hollywood(pty:dft). (Abbott, Daniel) |
| Filing 6 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement - NONE disclosed by Thais Alvarez (Pierre, Faudlin) |
|
Filing 5
PAPERLESS ORDER TO FILE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONSWithin SEVEN (7) DAYS of entry of an appearance, each party, including governmental parties, must file certificates of interested parties and corporate disclosure statements that contain a complete list of persons, associated persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have a financial interest in the outcome of this case, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party. The parties shall not include Judge Singhal or the paired magistrate judges as interested parties unless they have an interest in the litigation. Throughout the pendency of the action, the parties are under a continuing obligation to amend, correct, and update the certificates. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 3/21/2023. (am00)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICEUnless otherwise specified by the Court, every motion, legal memorandum, brief, and otherwise shall: be double-spaced, in justified alignment, in 12-point font, using either Times New Roman or Arial typeface. This Notice does not supplant the requirements and provisions of Local Rule 7.1(c). The Court cautions parties against excessive use of footnotes.Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint motions (and responses to motions) with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of position. If conflicts of position exist, parties shall explain the conflicts in their separate motions (and responses).Parties are encouraged to seek extensions of time in a timely fashion. "A motion for extension of time is not self-executing; no motion is, unless expressly provided for by the applicable rule. Yet, by filing these motions on or near the last day, and then sitting idle pending the Court's disposition of the motion, parties essentially grant their own motion. The Court will not condone this." Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, 2020 WL 2844888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (internal citations omitted).Exhibits to pleadings and motions shall be docketed in accordance with the Courts CM/ECF procedures, Rule 3L.(2): (2) Describing an Attachment to a Docket EntryA party filing an attachment to a document shall select one of the prescribed attachment categories from the drop-down menu (e.g., affidavit, transcript), provide an alphabetical or numerical designation (e.g., Exhibit A, Exhibit 1), and descriptively name each attachment (e.g., Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Boo Radley) in a manner that enables the Court to easily locate and distinguish attachments. (Emphasis added.) Local Rule 16.4, Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requires that a Notice of Settlement "shall be filed and served jointly by counsel for all parties to the settlement." A unilateral notice of settlement will not stay pre-trial deadlines or hearings.Failure to comply with any of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 3/21/2023. (am00) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to City of Hollywood. (nwn) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Raag Singhal. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (nwn) |
| Filing 1 Complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against All Defendants. Filing fee $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-16444512, filed by Thais Alvarez. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s))(Pierre, Faudlin) |
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 Southern 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: Alvarez v. City of Hollywood | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Thais Alvarez | |
| Represented By: | Faudlin Pierre |
| 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: City of Hollywood | |
| Represented By: | Anne Reilly Flanigan |
| Represented By: | Daniel Lawrence Abbott |
| Represented By: | Lindsay Marie Behnke |
| 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.
