Seidler et al v. United Maintenance Company, Inc.
Will Binns and Michael Seidler |
United Maintenance Company, Inc. |
1:2019cv00813 |
February 7, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
Edmond E Chang |
Labor: Fair Standards |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1938 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant United Maintenance Company, Inc. by Emory Darnell Moore, Jr (Moore, Emory) |
Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the certification in R. 9, the joint extension motion #9 on MID disclosures is granted to 05/03/2019. The initial status hearing of 04/03/2019 is reset to 05/07/2019 at 10:30 a.m., with the joint initial status report, R. 5, due by 05/01/2019. Emailed notice (slb, ) |
Filing 10 Joint NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Kevin Mulherin for presentment of extension of time #9 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 3/28/2019 at 08:30 AM. (Mulherin, Joseph) |
Filing 9 MOTION by Defendant United Maintenance Company, Inc. for extension of time JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND MANDATORY INITIAL DISCOVERY DEADLINES (Mulherin, Joseph) |
Filing 8 Class Action and Collective Action ANSWER to Complaint by United Maintenance Company, Inc.(Mulherin, Joseph) |
Filing 7 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by United Maintenance Company, Inc. (Mulherin, Joseph) |
Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant United Maintenance Company, Inc. by Joseph Kevin Mulherin (Mulherin, Joseph) |
Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Initial status hearing set for 04/03/2019 at 9:00 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, ) |
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. (jh, ) |
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant United Maintenance Company, Inc. (pj, ) |
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jjr, ) |
Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Will Binns, Michael Seidler by Jeffrey Grant Brown (Brown, Jeffrey) |
Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Dunn, Glen) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Michael Seidler, Will Binns; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-15463401.(Dunn, Glen) |
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.