Reyes v. Cintas Corporation
| Anthony Reyes |
| Cintas Corporation |
| 1:2023cv02489 |
| April 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Jeffrey Cummings |
| Robert W Gettleman |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 MOTION by Plaintiff Anthony Reyes for extension of time to file response/reply as to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim #7 Presented before Presiding Judge (Taylor, Alexander) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cummings: This case has been referred for discovery supervision. The Court has reviewed the parties' recent joint status #11 and the District Court's order #12 setting a 6/26/23 deadline for the exchange of Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and to issue initial written discovery requests. All fact discovery shall be completed by 12/18/23. The parties shall diligently and cooperatively proceed with discovery to meet those deadlines. The parties are reminded of their duty to meet and confer under Local Rule 37.2 before filing any discovery motions with the Court. By 7/14/23, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth what discovery has been completed, what discovery remains, and whether any discovery disputes require the Court's attention. Mailed notice (cc, ) |
| Filing 13 Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of Honorable Jeffrey Cummings for the purpose of holding proceedings related to: discovery supervision (including the authority to adjust all deadlines). (mw, ) Emailed notice. |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the status report, R. 11,. Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures due 06/26/2023. The first round of written discovery requests must be issued by 06/26/2023. Rule 16(b) deadline to add parties or amend pleadings is 09/05/2023. **No summary judgment motion may be filed before the close of fact discovery without prior authorization of the Court.** Discovery supervision is referred to the magistrate judge (including the authority to adjust all deadlines). The tracking status hearing of 06/02/2023 is reset to 07/14/2023 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). The partial dismissal motion will be fully briefed by then. Emailed notice (mw, ) |
| Filing 11 STATUS Report JOINT by Anthony Reyes (Taylor, Alexander) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) On review of the Defendant's motion #7 to dismiss, the second argument is rejected and no response to that aspect of the motion is needed, specifically, that the Plaintiff did not plead a prima facie case of discrimination. There is no need to plead a prima facie case at the pleading stage. That is a framework for evaluating evidence of discrimination at the summary judgment stage, not the pleading stage. It is puzzling why a law firm with the stature of the defense firm would advance this argument, after controlling precedent has made this crystal clear. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 51112 (2002) (prima facie elements not required at pleading stage); Graham v. Board of Educ., 8 F.4th 625, 627 (7th Cir. 2021). (2.) On the argument against the Section 1981 claim, it is not clear why the Plaintiff pleaded the claim this way. If the idea is to automatically open the floodgates of discovery, just pleading a claim does not do so; nor does limiting the claim to a single-plaintiff claim mean that the Plaintiff is totally barred from asking for targeted discovery on whether an allegedly discriminatory motive goes beyond just the Plaintiff. In any event, the Plaintiff's response shall address this argument. The Plaintiff's response is due on 06/12/2023. The defense reply is due on 06/26/2023. (3.) Last point on the dismissal motion: the Plaintiff's response also shall address the hostile work environment. Even setting aside the defense's exhaustion argument, given the relatively high bar for hostile work environment claims, even at the pleading stage the Court is skeptical that an adequate claim has been alleged. (4.) In the upcoming status report, the parties shall set forth whether they think that discovery should be paused during the pendency of the dismissal motion. It seems not, at least on the straightforward failure-to-hire claim. (5.) Lastly, the parties should discuss settlement as promptly as possible, given the reasons on both sides to resolve the case before getting too deep into litigation. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) |
| Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Cintas Corporation by Caroline Kneafsey Vickrey (Vickrey, Caroline) |
| Filing 8 MEMORANDUM by Cintas Corporation in support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim #7 (Vickrey, Caroline) |
| Filing 7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Cintas Corporation Pursuant to 12(b)(6) (Vickrey, Caroline) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Initial tracking status hearing set for 06/02/2023 at 8:30 a.m. to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the Court will set the case schedule after reviewing the written status report. The parties must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report requirements by 05/24/2023. Plaintiff must still file the report even if Defendant has not responded to requests to craft a joint report. If Defendant has not been served, then Plaintiff must complete the part of the report on the progress of service. Also, counsel (or the parties, if proceeding pro se) must carefully review Judge Chang's Case Management Procedures, available online at ilnd.uscourts.gov (navigate to Judges / District Judges / Judge Edmond E. Chang). Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel (or the party, if proceeding pro se) must read them anew even if the counsel or the party has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases. Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (mw, ) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Anthony Reyes as to Cintas Corporation on 4/24/2023, answer due 5/15/2023. (Taylor, Alexander) |
| Filing 4 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang for all further proceedings pursuant to 28:294(b). Honorable Robert W. Gettleman no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 4/21/2023. (rp, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Cintas Corporation (smb, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anthony Reyes by Nathan Charles Volheim (Volheim, Nathan) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anthony Reyes by Alexander James Taylor (Taylor, Alexander) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Anthony Reyes; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20559603. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B)(Taylor, Alexander) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cummings. Case assignment: Random assignment. (lm, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (lm, ) |
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: Reyes v. Cintas Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Anthony Reyes | |
| Represented By: | Nathan Charles Volheim |
| Represented By: | Alexander James Taylor |
| 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: Cintas Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Caroline Kneafsey Vickrey |
| 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.
