Griffin et al v. Nexen Corporation et al
| Gregory Griffin and Maxwell McKearnen |
| Steven Kirka, Amazon.com, Inc. and Nexen Corporation |
| 2:2018cv12369 |
| July 30, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Wayne |
| Laurie J Michelson |
| Anthony P Patti |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Steven Kirka waiver sent on 8/4/2018, answer due 10/3/2018; Nexen Corporation waiver sent on 8/4/2018, answer due 10/3/2018. (Yaldou, Bryan) |
Filing 11
STIPULATION AND ORDER for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification #1 Complaint, and re #2 MOTION to Certify Class Conditionally, ( Responsive Pleading due by 10/2/2018), Set Motion as to #2 MOTION to Certify Class Conditionally, :( Defendants' Response due by 11/16/2018) Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (TMcg)
|
| Filing 10 STATEMENT of DISCLOSURE of CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS and FINANCIAL INTEREST by Amazon.com, Inc. (Sweitzer, Stephanie) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephanie L. Sweitzer on behalf of Amazon.com, Inc.. (Sweitzer, Stephanie) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Meredith E. Riccio on behalf of Amazon.com, Inc.. (Riccio, Meredith) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Issued for *Nexen Corporation* (EKar) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Issued for *Steven Kirka* (EKar) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Issued for *Amazon.com, Inc.* (EKar) |
| A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at #http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (EKar) |
| Filing 4 CONSENT to Sue by Maxwell McKearnen (Yaldou, Bryan) |
| Filing 3 CONSENT to Sue by Gregory Griffin (Yaldou, Bryan) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Certify Class Conditionally by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Index of Exhibits, #2 Exhibit A - Proposed Order, #3 Exhibit B - Proposed Notice & Consent, #4 Exhibit C - Griffin Declaration, #5 Exhibit D - McKearnen Declaration, #6 Exhibit E - Bunyan v Spectrum Brands, #7 Exhibit F - Crawford v Lexington-Fayette, #8 Exhibit G - Douglas v GE Energy, #9 Exhibit H - Flexter v Action Temporary, #10 Exhibit I - Frye v Baptist Mem'l, #11 Exhibit J - LaFleur v Dollar Tree Stores, #12 Exhibit K - Lankford v CWL Invs, #13 Exhibit L - Lee v Gab Telecom, #14 Exhibit M Lewis v Chow Time LLC, #15 Exhibit N - Lynch v Dining Concepts Grp, #16 Exhibit O Phelps v MC Commc'ns, #17 Exhibit P - Ritz v Mike Rory Corp, #18 Exhibit Q - Robinson v Roberts Hotels, #19 Exhibit R - Shabazz v Asurion, #20 Exhibit S - Shipes v Amurcom, #21 Exhibit T Smith v Lowe's, #22 Exhibit Taylor v Pittsburgh Mercy) (Yaldou, Bryan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by All Plaintiffs against All Defendants with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645-6838762 - Fee: $ 400. County of 1st Plaintiff: Macomb - County Where Action Arose: Oakland - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: #1 Index of Exhibits, #2 Exhibit A - Griffin Declaration, #3 Exhibit B - McKearnen Declaraion, #4 Exhibit C - US DOL Fissured Workplace, #5 Exhibit D - Ali v Piron, #6 Exhibit E - Dowd v DirecTV, #7 Exhibit F - Parrott v Marriott) (Yaldou, Bryan) |
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 Michigan Eastern 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.
