Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Jiffy Lube
| Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |
| Jiffy Lube |
| 0:2021mc00024 |
| March 25, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Katherine M Menendez |
| Eric C Tostrud |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 4, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
(Text-Only) ORDER on #15 Joint Stipulation To Withdraw Application For An Order To Show Cause Why Administrative Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced. On May 4, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation notifying the Court that they are in agreement that Respondent has complied with the subpoena. (ECF No. 15). Pursuant to the parties' Stipulation, the Petitioner's application has been withdrawn, and there is nothing left for the Court to decide in this matter. Accordingly, the Stipulation is adopted, the Petitioner's application for an order to show cause (ECF No. 1) is deemed withdrawn, and this miscellaneous case can be closed. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 5/4/2021. (KAT)
|
| Filing 16 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #15 Stipulation. (Burnside, Tina) |
| Filing 15 STIPULATION to Withdraw Application for an Order to Show Cause Why Administrative Subpoena Should Not be Enforced by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Jointly Signed by Corie J. Anderson. (Burnside, Tina) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER granting #12 Joint Stipulation for Briefing Schedule. The Court has determined that no hearing is necessary at this time. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 4/5/2021. (KAT)
|
| Filing 13 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #12 Stipulation. (Burnside, Tina) |
| Filing 12 STIPULATION for Briefing Schedule by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Jointly Signed by Jiffy Lube. (Burnside, Tina) |
|
Filing 11
(Text-Only) ORDER FOR PARTIES TO FILE DOCUMENT/RESPOND TO COURT re #1 Initiating Document in a Miscellaneous Case:Counsel for the parties are instructed to meet and confer regarding a briefing schedule for the Petitioner's application and to discuss whether they believe a hearing will be required or if the application can be decided on the papers. If the parties are able to reach an agreement on these matters, they may file a stipulation and a proposed order on or before 4/2/2021. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement regarding a briefing schedule and/or the need for a hearing, they shall separately file very brief letters setting forth their proposals on or before 4/2/2021. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 3/29/2021. (BJP)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Kernstock on behalf of All Defendants. (Kernstock, Michael) |
| Filing 9 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation or wholly-owned subsidiary to report for Respondent Jiffy Lube. (Anderson, Corie) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Corie J. Anderson on behalf of All Defendants. (Anderson, Corie) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Ethan Michael Morley Cohen on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cohen, Ethan) |
| Filing 6 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Eric C. Tostrud per Civil (Miscellaneous) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez. Please use case number 21-mc-24 (ECT/KMM). (KNK) |
| Filing 5 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #1 Initiating Document in a Miscellaneous Case. (Burnside, Tina) |
| Filing 4 DECLARATION of Tina Burnside re #1 Initiating Document in a Miscellaneous Case by EEOC . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 8 Email)(Burnside, Tina) |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Julianne Bowman re #1 Initiating Document in a Miscellaneous Case by EEOC . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 1 Intake Notes, #2 Exhibit(s) 2 EEOC Signed Charge of Discrimination, #3 Exhibit(s) 3 Notice of Charge, #4 Exhibit(s) 4 Subpoena and RFI of 6.13.2019, #5 Exhibit(s) 5 Certified Mail Receipt, #6 Exhibit(s) 6 Email of David Noyes to legal@jiffyworld re: Subpoena and RFI, #7 Exhibit(s) 7 Email)(Burnside, Tina) |
| Filing 2 Memorandum in Support of Application to Show Cause Why Administrative Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced . (Burnside, Tina) |
| Filing 1 WITHDRAWN PER ORDER 17 . Application for Order to Show Cause Why Administrative Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced . (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Burnside, Tina) Modified text on 3/25/2021 (KNK). Modified text on 5/5/2021 (MKB). |
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: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Jiffy Lube | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | |
| Represented By: | Ethan Michael Morley Cohen |
| Represented By: | Tina Burnside |
| 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 ] |
| Respondent: Jiffy Lube | |
| Represented By: | Michael Kernstock |
| Represented By: | Corie J. Anderson |
| 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.
