Mayfield v. P.O. Szczur #18774 et al
Dione Mayfield |
P.O. Loza #16201, P.O. Ahmed #16497, City of Chicago, P.O. Sanchez #10159, P.O. Perez #19056, P.O. Szczur #18774, P.O. Ahmed, P.O. Perez, P.O. Szczur, P.O. Sanchez and P.O. Loza |
1:2019cv07363 |
November 6, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
Martha M Pacold |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 17 CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 12/11/2019:(rao, ) |
Filing 16 AGREED QUALIFIED HIPAA AND MHDDCA PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 12/11/2019:(rao, ) |
Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Defendant City of Chicago's unopposed motion for entry of qualified HIPAA and MHDDCA Protective Order #9 is granted. Defendants' agreed joint motion for entry of confidentiality order #12 is granted. (rao, ) |
Filing 14 AGREED Confidentiality Order NOTICE of Motion by Laniya Monique Moore for presentment of motion for protective order #12 before Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 12/17/2019 at 09:30 AM. (Moore, Laniya) |
Filing 13 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) , filed by Plaintiff Dione Mayfield. (Orozco, Brian) |
Filing 12 MOTION by Defendants P.O. Ahmed, City of Chicago, P.O. Loza, P.O. Perez, P.O. Szczur for protective order AGREED Confidentiality Order (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Moore, Laniya) |
Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants P.O. Ahmed, City of Chicago, P.O. Loza, P.O. Perez, P.O. Szczur by Laniya Monique Moore (Moore, Laniya) |
Filing 10 Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Nathan A. Shine for presentment of motion for protective order #9 before Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 12/12/2019 at 09:30 AM. (Shine, Nathan) |
Filing 9 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for protective order Agreed HIPAA & MHDDCA Order (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Shine, Nathan) |
Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dione Mayfield by Gianna Gizzi (Gizzi, Gianna) |
Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Defendant City of Chicago's unopposed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead #5 is granted. All defendants are given until 1/10/2020 to answer or otherwise plead to the complaint. The parties are directed to file a joint status report by 1/17/2020. The Court will hold a status hearing on 1/24/2020 at 9:30 a.m. The motion hearing set for 12/5/2019 is stricken. (rao, ) |
Filing 6 Unopposed NOTICE of Motion by Nathan A. Shine for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer #5 before Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 12/5/2019 at 09:30 AM. (Shine, Nathan) |
Filing 5 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead, Unopposed (Shine, Nathan) |
Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Chicago by Nathan A. Shine (Shine, Nathan) |
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (daj, ) |
Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dione Mayfield by Gregory E. Kulis (Attachments: #1 Attorney Lien)(Kulis, Gregory) |
Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dione Mayfield by Brian M Orozco (Orozco, Brian) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Dione Mayfield; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16416084. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Orozco, Brian) |
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.