Phebus v. Walmart Inc.
| Glorine Phebus |
| Walmart Inc. |
| 3:2021cv03108 |
| May 3, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Richard Mills |
| Tom Schanzle-Haskins |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Nicholas Clark Martin on behalf of Walmart Inc. (Martin, Nicholas) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to #1 Complaint AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Walmart Inc..(DeFranco, James) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by James E DeFranco on behalf of Walmart Inc. (DeFranco, James) |
| NOTICE OF HEARING: Telephonic Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set Wednesday, 7/21/2021, at 10:00 AM (court will place call) before U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Attorneys are directed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) by meeting as soon as practicable, and in any event at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference, and are to submit a proposed discovery plan in writing to the Court on or before 7/19/2021. Such a plan must include, at a minimum, those items listed in CDIL-LR 26.2(3), Rule 16(b), Rule 26(f), and CDIL-LR 16.2(E) with proposed deadlines. The parties are directed to specifically address the provisions, if any, for discovery or disclosure of electronically stored information, and to discuss agreements, if any, the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege or of protection as trial preparation material, after inadvertent production. Any plan filed shall specifically address the need, or lack thereof, concerning discovery of electronically stored information. If a discovery plan is not submitted as required, the scheduling hearing will not be held and costs may be assessed. Lead counsel or other counsel of record with knowledge of the case should be available to participate in the Rule 16 scheduling hearing. (LB) |
| Filing 4 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons & Complaint served on Walmart Inc. on May 12, 2021, filed by Glorine Phebus. (Carlson, Eric) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Walmart Inc. and returned to Plaintiff's counsel to effectuate service. (SKN) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Eric J Carlson on behalf of Glorine Phebus (Carlson, Eric) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Walmart Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0753-3650360.), filed by Glorine Phebus. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons)(Carlson, Eric) |
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 Illinois Central 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: Phebus v. Walmart Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Glorine Phebus | |
| Represented By: | Eric J Carlson |
| 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: Walmart Inc. | |
| Represented By: | James E DeFranco |
| Represented By: | Nicholas Clark Martin |
| 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.
