Cohan v. Rush Ontario, LLC
| Howard Cohan |
| Rush Ontario. LLC dba AC Marriott Chicago Downtown and Rush Ontario, LLC |
| 1:2018cv05680 |
| August 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Andrea R Wood |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 17, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: The parties' electronically advised the court that they are engaged in settlement discussions. By request and agreement of the parties, the initial status hearing set for 10/24/2018 is stricken and reset for 11/15/2018 at 9:00 AM. At least seven days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length. If a stipulation to dismiss is filed prior to the next status date, the hearing will be stricken. Mailed notice (ef, ) |
| Filing 9 CERTIFICATE of Service by Defendant Rush Ontario, LLC regarding attorney appearance #8 (Spitzzeri, Joseph) |
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Rush Ontario, LLC by Joseph Frank Spitzzeri (Spitzzeri, Joseph) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Rush Ontario, LLC by Amber N Lukowicz (The Marcus Corporation, incorrectly sued as Rush Ontario, LLC d/b/a AC Marriott Chicago Downtown) (Lukowicz, Amber) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Rush Ontario, LLC by Kevin G. Owens (The Marcus Corporation, incorrectly sued as Rush Ontario, LLC d/b/a AC Marriott Chicago Downtown) (Owens, Kevin) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Initial status hearing set for 10/24/2018 at 9:00 AM. The parties are directed to meet and conduct a planning conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). At least seven days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length. The initial status report shall provide the information described on the Court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under District Judges, Judge Andrea R. Wood, Initial Status Conference. Mailed notice (ef, ) |
| Filing 4 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. (cc, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Andrea R. Wood. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Cohan by Robert Michael Kaplan (Kaplan, Robert) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Kaplan, Robert) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Howard Cohan; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-14846873.(Kaplan, Robert) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
