Sanchez Marquez v. The UPS Store, Inc.
| Olga Sanchez Marquez |
| The UPS Store, Inc. |
| 1:2026cv23494 |
| May 18, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Darrin P Gayles |
| 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 June 30, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
PAPERLESS ORDER administratively closing the case in light of #10 Joint Notice of Settlement, which indicates that this matter has settled in full. Within forty-five (45) days of this Order, the parties shall file a Stipulation or Notice of Dismissal and/or Settlement Agreement along with any other pertinent document necessary to conclude this action. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 6/30/2026. (ia00)
|
| Filing 10 Joint NOTICE of Settlement by The UPS Store, Inc. (McWaters, Danielle) |
|
Filing 9
PAPERLESS ORDER granting Defendant's #8 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint. On or before July 10, 2026, Defendant shall file its response. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (mp02)
|
| Filing 8 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Complaint by The UPS Store, Inc.. Responses due by 6/24/2026. (McWaters, Danielle) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Danielle Nichole Hoyer McWaters on behalf of The UPS Store, Inc.. Attorney Danielle Nichole Hoyer McWaters added to party The UPS Store, Inc.(pty:dft). (McWaters, Danielle) |
| 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 Olga Sanchez Marquez. THE UPS STORE, INC. served on 5/20/2026, response/answer due 6/10/2026. (Hannah, Roderick) |
|
Filing 5
NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE. The Complaint in this action is filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq. In order to assist the Court in the management of this case, and in an effort to foster an early and cost-effective resolution, the parties are ORDERED as follows: Within fourteen (14) days of service of the Complaint, Defendant shall file a report with the Court indicating whether it agrees to (1) remediate the deficiencies identified in the Complaint, (2) entry of an injunction to ensure future compliance, and (3) pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, as determined by the Court or agreement by the parties. If so, Defendant shall include a reasonable timeline for remediation. If, upon review of the report, the Court finds that Defendant intends to remediate the property within a reasonable time, the action shall be stayed. If requested, the Court may grant proportional discovery to verify Defendant's remediation of the ADA deficiencies outlined in the Complaint. After receiving notice from the parties that the ADA deficiencies outlined in the Complaint have been remediated, the parties shall submit to the Court a proposed order of dismissal, including an injunction for future compliance and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Disputes will be resolved by the Court. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (mp02)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE. Unless otherwise specified by the Court, every filing 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, the 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 filing or dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (mp02) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to THE UPS STORE, INC.. (pc) |
| 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 Detra Shaw-Wilder 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. (pc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against THE UPS STORE, INC.. Filing fees $ 405.00 receipt number AFLSDC-19556294, filed by Olga Sanchez Marquez. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s))(Hannah, Roderick) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Sanchez Marquez v. The UPS Store, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Olga Sanchez Marquez | |
| Represented By: | Roderick Victor Hannah |
| Represented By: | Pelayo M. Duran |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: The UPS Store, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Danielle Nichole Hoyer McWaters |
| 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 | [ 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.
