Anderson v. Titan Security Group
| Camille Anderson |
| Titan Security Group |
| 1:2019cv06282 |
| September 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Sharon Johnson Coleman |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Status hearing held on 10/28/2019. Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #5 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff stated in open court that she had not received a right to sue letter and that her administrative case is still pending before the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Case is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (ym, ) |
| ***Civil Case Terminated. (ym, ) |
| Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Status hearing as to plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 and motion for attorney representation #5 is set for 10/28/2019 at 9:30 AM. Mailed notice. (ym, ) |
| Filing 10 EXHIBITS to amended complaint by Plaintiff Camille Anderson #9 (Sealed) (las, ) |
| Filing 9 RECEIVED Amended Complaint and no copies by Camille Anderson (las, ) |
| Filing 8 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. (las, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Camille Anderson for attorney representation (las, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Camille Anderson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (las, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Camille Anderson (las, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (las, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and one copy by Camille Anderson (las, ) |
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
| Search for this case: Anderson v. Titan Security Group | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Titan Security Group | |
| 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: Camille Anderson | |
| 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.
