Rice v. Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508
Plaintiff: Gwendolyn O. Rice
Defendant: Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508
Case Number: 1:2018cv05209
Filed: July 31, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Cook
Presiding Judge: Edmond E Chang
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 621
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 10, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 10, 2018 Filing 12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508 by John Joseph Lynch (Lynch, John)
September 7, 2018 Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508 by Nicholas A Simpson (Simpson, Nicholas)
September 7, 2018 Filing 10 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508 by James Daniel Thomas (Thomas, James)
September 7, 2018 Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the answer deadline of 10/01/2018, the status hearing of 09/10/2018 is reset to 10/10/2018 at 1:30 p.m. An update joint status report is due by 10/02/2018. Emailed notice (slb, )
September 5, 2018 Filing 8 Rule 26(f) Report for Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) Plaintiff's Status Report, filed by Plaintiff Gwendolyn O. Rice. (Holman, Brian)
August 16, 2018 Filing 7 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Gwendolyn O. Rice. Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508 waiver sent on 8/1/2018, answer due 10/1/2018. (Holman, Brian)
August 1, 2018 Filing 6 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (jk, )(Duplicate entry of document number 6) Modified on 8/1/2018 (ek, ).
August 1, 2018 Filing 5 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (ek, )
July 31, 2018 Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang:Initial status hearing set for 09/10/2018 at 9:30 a.m. The parties must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report requirements at least 3 business days before the initial status hearing. Plaintiff must still file the report even if not all Defendants have been served or have responded to requests to craft a joint report. Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel must read them anew even if counsel has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases. Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (slb, )
July 31, 2018 Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Gwendolyn O. Rice by Dennis H. Stefanowicz, Jr (Stefanowicz, Dennis)
July 31, 2018 Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Gwendolyn O. Rice by Brian Richard Holman (Holman, Brian)
July 31, 2018 Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Gwendolyn O. Rice; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-14761133. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Holman, Brian)
July 31, 2018 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. (jjr, )

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rice v. Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gwendolyn O. Rice
Represented By: Brian Richard Holman
Represented By: Dennis H. Stefanowicz, Jr.
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: Board of Trustees Community College District No. 508
Represented By: James Daniel Thomas
Represented By: John Joseph Lynch
Represented By: Nicholas A Simpson
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.


Why Is My Information Online?