Rojas v. Hendrix
| Raiza Rojas |
| Kathy Hendrix |
| 6:2023cv00045 |
| July 31, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
| Statesboro Office |
| Brian K Epps |
| J Randal Hall |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 REPLY to Response to Motion re #6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Kathy Hendrix. (Stevens, Amelia) |
| Filing 12 OBJECTION to #11 Order on Motion to Stay, by Raiza Rojas. (gmh) |
Filing 11
ORDER granting #7 Motion to Stay Discovery. The Court stays all aspects of discovery pending resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss. The parties shall confer and submit a second Rule 26(f) Report, with proposed case deadlines, within seven days of the presiding District Judge's ruling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 9/8/2023. (maa)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Intent to File Reply Briefs by Kathy Hendrix re #6 MOTION to Dismiss , #7 MOTION to Stay Discovery. (Stevens, Amelia) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE in Opposition re #7 MOTION to Stay Discovery filed by Raiza Rojas. (wwp) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE in Opposition re #6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Raiza Rojas. (wwp) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Stay Discovery by Kathy Hendrix. Responses due by 9/6/2023. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tuten, Ben) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss by Kathy Hendrix. Responses due by 9/6/2023. (Tuten, Ben) |
| MOTIONS REFERRED: #7 MOTION to Stay Discovery. (csr) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Raiza Rojas. Kathy Hendrix served on 8/2/2023, answer due 8/23/2023. (loh) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER DIRECTING the CLERK to attach copy of Rule 4 to this Order so that Plaintiff may determine the appropriate method of service for Defendant. The Court HEREBY NOTIFIES Plaintiff she must serve Defendant within ninety days after the complaint was filed. ( Compliance due by 10/29/2023). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 7/31/23. (wwp)
|
|
Filing 3
RULE 26(F) ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 7/31/23. (Attachments: #1 Civil Case Forms) (loh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/31/2023: #2 Rule 26 Instruction Order) (thb).
|
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to Kathy Hendrix. (loh) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kathy Hendrix, filed by Raiza Rojas. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(loh) |
| Filing fee: $ 402.00, receipt number 400000866. (loh) |
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 Georgia 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: Rojas v. Hendrix | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Raiza Rojas | |
| 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: Kathy Hendrix | |
| Represented By: | Ben T. Tuten |
| Represented By: | Amelia C. Stevens |
| Represented By: | Jacob D. Massee |
| 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.
