Block v. RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Christopher Block
Defendant: RMH Franchise Corp. and RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2019cv04427
Filed: July 1, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: John J Tharp
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 20, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 20, 2019 Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:This case is set for an initial status conference on 9/24/19 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are directed to review the procedures for initial status conferences, located at [https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?79eF+7uiX7ewBj/ITKrjoA==], and to submit the required initial status report no later than 9/17/19. Mailed notice (air, )
August 19, 2019 Filing 5 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Christopher Block. RMH Franchise Corp. waiver sent on 7/11/2019, answer due 9/9/2019; RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc. waiver sent on 7/11/2019, answer due 9/9/2019. (York, Adam)
July 2, 2019 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. (nsf, )
July 2, 2019 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants RMH Franchise Corp., RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc. (pj, )
July 2, 2019 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ec, )
July 1, 2019 Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christopher Block by Adam C York (York, Adam)
July 1, 2019 Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (York, Adam)
July 1, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT Nationwide Class Action Complaint filed by Christopher Block; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-15987427.(York, Adam)

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: Block v. RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: RMH Franchise Corp.
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: RMH Franchise Holdings, Inc.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Block
Represented By: Adam C York
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?