David v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd
| Nathan David |
| Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd |
| 1:2021cv01815 |
| April 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Robert M Dow |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 19, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 ANSWER to Complaint by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd(Kays, Danielle) |
| Filing 14 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd by Ellen E. McLaughlin (McLaughlin, Ellen) |
| Filing 13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd by Danielle M. Kays (Kays, Danielle) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Defendant Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint #10 (Kays, Danielle) |
| Filing 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by U.S. Marshal as to Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd on 4/28/2021, answer due 5/19/2021. (Attachments: #1 USM 285)(ec, ) |
| Filing 10 COMPLAINT filed by Nathan David. (Attachments) (lma, ) |
Filing 9
ORDER: Plaintiff Nathan David ("Plaintiff") brings suit against Defendant Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Defendant") for employment discrimination. See #1 . This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis #5 and motion for attorney representation #6 . Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #5 is granted. The U.S. Marshals Service is appointed to serve summons on Defendant Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. See 7 (summons) and 8 (USM-285 form). Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation #6 is denied without prejudice as premature as Defendant has not yet answered the complaint and Plaintiff does not indicate in his motion whether he has made any attempts to retain counsel on his own. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010). Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 4/9/2021. Mailed notice (lma, )
|
| SUMMONS Issued, certified copy of order dated 4/9/2021 to the U.S. Marshal's Office for service as to Defendant Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (lma, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Plaintiff Nathan David for attorney representation (lma, ) |
| Filing 5 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Nathan David for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (lma, ) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Nathan David (lma, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Nathan David (lma, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (lma, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Nathan David. (Attachments) (lma, ) |
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: David v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd | |
| Represented By: | Ellen E. McLaughlin |
| Represented By: | Danielle M. Kays |
| 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: Nathan David | |
| 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.
