Lucius v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc.
Windy Lucius |
Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. |
1:2020cv20900 |
February 28, 2020 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
Raag Singhal |
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 Administrative Order Closing Case without prejudice. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 4/14/2020. See attached document for full details. (lk) |
Filing 7 NOTICE of Settlement Joint Notice of Settlement by Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc.. Attorney Susan Nadler Eisenberg added to party Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc.(pty:dft). (Eisenberg, Susan) |
Filing 6 PAPERLESS ORDER granting #5 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Answer to a Complaint or Other Case Initiating Document as to Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. Answer due 4/14/2020 Re: #1 Complaint filed by Windy Lucius. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 3/19/2020. (AHS) |
Filing 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Complaint by Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc.. Attorney Arielle Sara Eisenberg added to party Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc.(pty:dft). (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Eisenberg, Arielle) |
Filing 4 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Windy Lucius. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. served on 3/3/2020, answer due 3/24/2020. (Cunningham, Juan) |
Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. (pcs) |
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 Chris M. McAliley 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. (pcs) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Injunctive Relief against Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc.. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number AFLSDC-12530337, filed by Windy Lucius. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s))(Cunningham, Juan) |
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: Lucius v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. | |
Represented By: | Susan Nadler Eisenberg |
Represented By: | Arielle Sara Eisenberg |
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: Windy Lucius | |
Represented By: | Juan Courtney Cunningham |
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.