Terrell et al v. Boost Mobile
| Kamiria James and Kevinneshia Terrell |
| Boost Mobile |
| 1:2019cv06897 |
| October 18, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1938 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Status hearing held. Counsel for Plaintiff advised that defense counsel had another appointment that could not be missed. In the future, it would be better to jointly contact the courtroom deputy to request a continuance. Defendant shall answer or respond to the complaint by 12/23/2019. Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MID) disclosures due 01/23/2020. MID disclosures must be complete and fulsome, especially relating to any records of hours worked. That should facilitate prompt settlement discussions. The first-round of written discovery requests to fill gaps in the MID disclosures due no later than 02/06/2020. Fact discovery shall close by 04/06/2020. Status hearing set for 02/11/2020 at 9:00 a.m Mailed notice (mw, ) |
| Filing 8 STATUS Report Joint Initial Status Report by Kevinneshia Terrell (Strauss, Paul) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Boost Mobile by Mason Scott Cole (Cole, Mason) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Kamiria James as to Boost Mobile on 11/7/2019, answer due 11/29/2019. (Strauss, Paul) |
| 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. (jh, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Boost Mobile (yt) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang:Initial status hearing set for 12/03/2019 at 9:30 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 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Kamiria James, Kevinneshia Terrell by Paul Strauss (Strauss, Paul) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Strauss, Paul) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Kevinneshia Terrell; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16352548.(Strauss, Paul) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (axc, ) |
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.
