Velez v. Neocis, Inc.
| Robin Velez |
| Neocis, Inc. |
| 1:2020cv23161 |
| July 30, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Darrin P Gayles |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 20, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 REPLY to Response to Motion re #9 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS #6 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Neocis, Inc.. (Anderson, Tiffany) |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE in Opposition re #9 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS #6 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Robin Velez. Replies due by 9/24/2020. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Charge of Discrimination)(Saavedra, Nathaly) |
| Filing 11 Defendant's Certificate of Other Affiliates by Neocis, Inc. (Anderson, Tiffany) |
| Filing 10 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 16.1 by Robin Velez (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order, #2 Exhibit Magistrate Selection)(Saavedra, Nathaly) |
| Filing 9 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS #6 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Neocis, Inc.. Responses due by 9/17/2020 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Anderson, Tiffany) |
Filing 8
PAPERLESS ORDER REQUIRING JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT AND PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER. Pursuant to S.D. Fla. Local Rule 16.1, on or before September 17, 2020, the parties shall prepare and file a Joint Scheduling Report, as well as Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statements.The parties shall also file a Proposed Scheduling Order, adhering to the format and guidance of the attached form. If the parties deviate in any way from that format and guidance, they shall contemporaneously submit a written explanation, which provides their purported justification for each and every deviation. If the parties fail to submit such written explanation, the Court may enter a Scheduling Order that does not take into account the parties' proposed dates.Failure to comply with this Order shall be grounds for dismissal without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles See attached document for full details. (hs01)
|
|
Filing 7
PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot #4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in light of the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01)
|
| Filing 6 Plaintiff's AMENDED COMPLAINT against Neocis, Inc., filed by Robin Velez.(Saavedra, Nathaly) |
| Filing 5 Defendant's Corporate Disclosure Statement by Neocis, Inc. (Anderson, Tiffany) |
| Filing 4 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS #1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Neocis, Inc.. Responses due by 8/20/2020 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Anderson, Tiffany) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE. Unless otherwise specified by the Court, every motion shall be double-spaced in Times New Roman 12-point typeface. Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint 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. Failure to comply with ANY of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, the striking of the motion or dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Darrin P. Gayles. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes 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. (amb) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT - Complaint) Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number AFLSDC-13269586, filed by Neocis, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover, #2 Exhibit 1 - Complaint and State Court Filed Documents, #3 Exhibit 2 - Copy of State Court Notice of Filing Notice of Removal)(Anderson, Tiffany)(No Answer or Motion to dismiss filed) Text Modified on 7/30/2020 (amb). |
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: Velez v. Neocis, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Robin Velez | |
| Represented By: | Nathaly Saavedra |
| Represented By: | Juan J. Perez |
| 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: Neocis, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Tiffany Lynn Anderson |
| 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.
