Vergara v. Hot Topic, Inc. of California
| Pedro Vergara |
| Hot Topic, Inc. of California |
| 1:2022cv22428 |
| August 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Beth Bloom |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. (With Prejudice) Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 9/22/2022. See attached document for full details. (mee)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice by Pedro Vergara (Hannah, Roderick) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE / (Without Prejudice) Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 8/24/2022. See attached document for full details. (swr)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Settlement by Pedro Vergara (Hannah, Roderick) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re #4 Order (Verified Certificate Regarding Prior ADA Filings) by Roderick Victor Hannah on behalf of Pedro Vergara (Hannah, Roderick) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS (Affidavit) Returned Executed on #1 Complaint with a 21 day response/answer filing deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 by Pedro Vergara. Hot Topic, Inc. of California served on 8/3/2022, response/answer due 8/24/2022. (Hannah, Roderick) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER REQUIRING VERIFIED CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, SCHEDULING REPORT, AND CERTIFICATES OF INTERESTED PARTIES Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 8/2/2022. See attached document for full details. (swr)
|
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Hot Topic, Inc. of California. (cds) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Beth Bloom. 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. (cds) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Hot Topic, Inc. of California. Filing fees $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15839222, filed by Pedro Vergara. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Summon(s))(Hannah, Roderick) |
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: Vergara v. Hot Topic, Inc. of California | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Pedro Vergara | |
| Represented By: | Pelayo M. Duran |
| Represented By: | Roderick Victor Hannah |
| 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: Hot Topic, Inc. of California | |
| 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.
