Smith v. Starbucks Corporation
| Janet Smith |
| Starbucks Corporation |
| 0:2019cv02301 |
| August 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Hildy Bowbeer |
| Ann D Montgomery |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 10/17/2019. (JMK)
|
| Filing 8 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #7 Stipulation. (Girouard, Mark) |
| Filing 7 STIPULATION for Protective Order by Starbucks Corporation. Jointly Signed by Janet Smith. (Girouard, Mark) |
| Filing 6 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Filed by Janet Smith. Jointly Signed by Starbucks Corporation.(Parker, Andrew) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER setting PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 10/24/2019. Pretrial Conference set for 10/31/2019 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 9/20/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(JMK)
|
| Filing 4 Plaintiff's REPLY to Counterclaim filed by Janet Smith. (DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR/NOT NECESSARY. Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Parker, Andrew) Modified text on 9/11/2019 (MMG). |
| (Text-Only) NOTICE - Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's Practice Pointers, which have been recently revised, are available on the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota's #website. All parties are expected to be familiar with and adhere to these Practice Pointers, including any variances from Local Rules. (JMK) |
| Filing 3 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint and, COUNTERCLAIM against Janet Smith. filed by Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (Girouard, Mark) Modified text on 8/28/2019 (MMG). |
| Filing 2 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Ann D. Montgomery per Civil (3rd, 4th - Civil Rights) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Please use case number 19-cv-2301 (ADM/HB). (lmb) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Hennepin County District Court, case number Pending (filing fee $ 400, receipt number AMNDC-7093657) filed by Starbucks Corporation. No summons requested. (Attachments: #1 Summons and Complaint, #2 Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal, #3 Affidavit of Service, #4 Civil Cover Sheet) (Riskin, Sarah) |
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 Minnesota 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: Smith v. Starbucks Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Janet Smith | |
| Represented By: | Jordon Greenlee |
| Represented By: | Lori A Johnson |
| Represented By: | Andrew D Parker |
| 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: Starbucks Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Nicole F. Dailo |
| Represented By: | Mark J Girouard |
| Represented By: | Sarah B C Riskin |
| 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.
