Benson et al v. Stattus Technology, Inc.
Plaintiff: Marilyn McAfee, Jennifer Ramsey and Lisa Benson
Defendant: Stattus Technology, Inc.
Case Number: 9:2019cv80787
Filed: June 14, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Presiding Judge: Dave Lee Brannon
Referring Judge: Donald M Middlebrooks
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 29:0201
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 5, 2019 Filing 14 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS #1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Stattus Technology, Inc.. Responses due by 8/19/2019 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Schwartz, Andrew)
August 2, 2019 Filing 13 PAPERLESS ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Telephone Conference set for 8/14/2019 at 2:00 PM in West Palm Beach Division before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon. At that time, the parties shall call (888) 808-6929 and enter access code 2036573. Any motions to modify the existing trial date should be filed prior to the telephonic scheduling conference. Because of the expedited nature of the conference, the parties are relieved of Local Rule 16.1(b)s conference report requirement. The parties must be prepared at their assigned time but may have to wait 10-20 minutes before their conference begins, as the Court sets multiple cases per 30-minute time slot. (spe)
August 1, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER REFERRING CASE AND SETTING TRIAL DATE. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon for a Scheduling Conference. SCHEDULING ORDER: ( Jury Trial set for 1/13/2020 09:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks., Calendar Call set for 1/8/2020 01:15 PM in West Palm Beach Division before Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.) Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 8/1/2019. See attached document for full details. (mee)
July 31, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 11 PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part #10 Motion for Extension of Time. On July 15, 2019, I extended the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint by two weeks. (DE 7 ). Defendant now seeks an additional two-week extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint, asserting that its counsel was recently retained and that it therefore requires additional time to prepare Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' pleading. Given that Defendant has been represented by the same counsel at least since it filed its first motion for extension of time, Defendant has not shown good cause for another two-week extension of time. Instead, the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be extended to August 5, 2019. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 7/31/2019. (sfr)
July 30, 2019 Filing 10 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer to Plainiffs' Complaint by Stattus Technology, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Agreement of the Parties)(Schwartz, Andrew)
July 29, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 PAPERLESS ORDER denying without prejudice #8 Motion for Extension of Time. Pursuant to S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), prior to filing any motion in a civil case, counsel for the moving party shall certify "that counsel for the movant has conferred with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and has been unable to do so." S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). Defendant has provided no such certification in the Motion for Extension of Time. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is denied without prejudice, and Defendant may only re-file the Motion after attempting to confer with Plaintiffs to resolve the issues raised in the Motion. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 7/29/2019. (sfr)
July 26, 2019 Filing 8 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Stattus Technology, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time)(Schwartz, Andrew)
July 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 PAPERLESS ORDER striking #5 Motion for Extension of Time and granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Defendant Stattus Technology, Inc. to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint (DE #1 ) shall be extended to July 26, 2019. Signed by Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks on 7/15/2019. (sfr)
July 12, 2019 Filing 6 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Stattus Technology, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schwartz, Andrew)
July 12, 2019 Filing 5 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Stattus Technology, Inc.. Attorney Andrew Mitchell Schwartz added to party Stattus Technology, Inc.(pty:dft). (Schwartz, Andrew)
June 27, 2019 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 Lisa Benson, Jennifer Ramsey, Marilyn McAfee. Stattus Technology, Inc. served on 6/21/2019, answer due 7/12/2019. (Sconzo, Gregory)
June 14, 2019 Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Stattus Technology, Inc.. (mee)
June 14, 2019 Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks and Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon 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. (mee)
June 14, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Stattus Technology, Inc.. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number 113C-11730119, filed by Lisa Benson, Jennifer Ramsey, Marilyn McAfee. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s), #3 Exhibit A Plaintiff Benson Breakdown, #4 Exhibit B Plaintiff McAfee Breakdown, #5 Exhibit C Plaintiff Ramsey Breakdown, #6 Exhibit D Plaintiff Benson Offer Sheet)(Sconzo, Gregory)

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: Benson et al v. Stattus Technology, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marilyn McAfee
Represented By: Gregory Steven Sconzo
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jennifer Ramsey
Represented By: Gregory Steven Sconzo
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lisa Benson
Represented By: Gregory Steven Sconzo
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Stattus Technology, Inc.
Represented By: Andrew Mitchell Schwartz
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 [ 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?