Davis v. Advocate Health Care
Plaintiff: Yolanda R Davis
Defendant: Advocate Health Care
Case Number: 1:2019cv06036
Filed: September 9, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: John Z Lee
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 30, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 5, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Given the deadline for Defendant's answer or responsive pleading, the status hearing set for 11/6/19 is reset to 11/21/19 at 9:00 a.m.Mailed notice (ca, )
October 31, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 11 STATUS Report Joint Initial Status Report by Advocate Health Care (Bailey, Heather)
October 30, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Advocate Health Care by Allison Patricia Sues (Sues, Allison)
October 28, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 Certification by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations Under Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project by Yolanda R Davis (Salzer, Abby)
October 28, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Yolanda R Davis. Advocate Health Care waiver sent on 9/16/2019, answer due 11/15/2019. (Salzer, Abby)
October 22, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Advocate Health Care by Heather Anne Bailey (Bailey, Heather)
September 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Initial status hearing set for 11/6/19 at 9:00 a.m. Judge Lee participates in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project ("Project"). The Project applies to all cases filed on or after June 1, 2017, excluding the following: (1) cases exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B), (2) actions brought by a person in the custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision, regardless of whether an attorney is recruited, (3) actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, (4) patent cases governed by the Local Patent Rules, and (5) cases transferred for consolidated administration in the District by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("Exempt Cases").For all cases to which the Project applies, Judge Lee requires (1) each attorney appearing on behalf of Plaintiff(s) to file a "Certification by Attorney Regarding Discovery Obligations Under Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" form within 28 days after the filing of the Complaint and (2) each attorney appearing on behalf of Defendant(s) to file the certification form with the Answer. The parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing. The certification form and initial status report requirements are set forth in Judge Lee's standing order regarding the "Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" available on the Courts website. For all Exempt Cases, the parties are directed to file a joint initial status report four business days prior to the initial status hearing in accordance with the standing order governing "Initial Status Report in Cases Exempt from the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project" also available on the Court's website. Mailed notice (ca, )
September 10, 2019 Opinion or Order 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, )
September 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Yolanda R Davis by Abby Dritz Salzer Gary Martoccio (Salzer, Abby)
September 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Yolanda R Davis by Abby Dritz Salzer (Salzer, Abby)
September 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Salzer, Abby)
September 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Yolanda R Davis; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16217465.(Salzer, Abby)
September 9, 2019 Opinion or Order CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Z. Lee. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier. Case assignment: Random assignment. (td, )

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: Davis v. Advocate Health Care
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Yolanda R Davis
Represented By: Abby Dritz Salzer
Represented By: Gary James Martoccio
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: Advocate Health Care
Represented By: Allison Patricia Sues
Represented By: Heather Anne Bailey
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?