Amaro v. Tapestry, Inc.
Plaintiff: Maria Isabel Amaro
Defendant: Tapestry, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2019cv21070
Filed: March 20, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Presiding Judge: Edwin G Torres
Referring Judge: Kathleen M Williams
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 16, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 16, 2019 ***Deadline(s)/Hearing(s) terminated as per DE 15 . (lk)
May 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 15 PAPERLESS ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND CLOSING CASE. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. #14 . Upon review of the notice and the record, the Court ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All deadlines and hearings are CANCELED. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 5/15/2019. (jws)
May 15, 2019 Filing 14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice by Maria Isabel Amaro (Shamis, Andrew)
May 10, 2019 Filing 13 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Tapestry, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., Corporate Parent The Vanguard Group for Tapestry, Inc. (Pertnoy, Jeffrey)
May 10, 2019 Filing 12 Defendant's MOTION to Stay re #11 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Dismiss or Stay this Action Initial Disclosures and Discovery Pending Ruling on Dispositive Motion to Compel Arbitration, Strike Class Allegations, or, in the Alternative, Dismiss or Stay this Action by Tapestry, Inc.. Responses due by 5/24/2019 (Pertnoy, Jeffrey)
May 10, 2019 Filing 11 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Dismiss or Stay this Action by Tapestry, Inc.. Responses due by 5/24/2019 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4)(Pertnoy, Jeffrey)
May 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 10 PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part and denying in part #8 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Answer to a Complaint. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint by May 10, 2019. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 5/2/2019. (jws)
April 10, 2019 Filing 9 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christopher Stephen Carver on behalf of Tapestry, Inc.. Attorney Christopher Stephen Carver added to party Tapestry, Inc.(pty:dft). (Carver, Christopher)
April 10, 2019 Filing 8 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Complaint Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint by Tapestry, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order Granting Motion for Enlargement of Time)(Pertnoy, Jeffrey)
April 10, 2019 Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jeffrey Benjamin Pertnoy on behalf of Tapestry, Inc.. Attorney Jeffrey Benjamin Pertnoy added to party Tapestry, Inc.(pty:dft). (Pertnoy, Jeffrey)
April 8, 2019 Filing 6 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Maria Isabel Amaro. Tapestry, Inc. served on 3/22/2019, answer due 4/12/2019. (Shamis, Andrew)
March 21, 2019 Filing 5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jordan David Utanski on behalf of Maria Isabel Amaro. Attorney Jordan David Utanski added to party Maria Isabel Amaro(pty:pla). (Utanski, Jordan)
March 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres for Pretrial Non-Dispositive Matters And Notice of Court Practices And Procedures. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 3/21/2019. See attached document for full details. (cds)
March 20, 2019 Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Tapestry, Inc. (ar2)
March 20, 2019 Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Kathleen M. Williams. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres 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. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (ar2)
March 20, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Tapestry, Inc.. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number 113C-11490920, filed by Maria Isabel Amaro. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s))(Shamis, Andrew)

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 this case: Amaro v. Tapestry, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Maria Isabel Amaro
Represented By: Garrett O. Berg
Represented By: Scott Adam Edelsberg
Represented By: Andrew John Shamis
Represented By: Jordan David Utanski
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: Tapestry, Inc.
Represented By: Jeffrey Benjamin Pertnoy
Represented By: Christopher Stephen Carver
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?