Mathiason v. Shutterfly, Inc.
Rita Mathiason |
Shutterfly, Inc. |
0:2022cv01203 |
May 4, 2022 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
John F Docherty |
David S Doty |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 17 NOTICE of Appearance by Katie M Connolly on behalf of Shutterfly, Inc.. (Connolly, Katie) |
Filing 16 ANSWER to #11 Amended Complaint (Second Amended Complaint) filed by Shutterfly, Inc.. (Conlin, Erin) |
Filing 15 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions to Amend Pleadings or Join Parties due by 10/17/2022. Fact Discovery due by 3/3/2023. Expert Discovery due by 6/12/2023. Motions (non-disp) due 2/17/2023. Motions (disp) due by 8/14/2023. Ready for trial due by 12/12/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 6/22/2022.(TJS) |
Filing 14 (Text-Only) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty: Pretrial Conference held on 6/22/2022. Appearances: Blaine Balow for Plaintiff, Ellen Brinkman for Defendant. A pretrial scheduling order will issue. (TJS) |
Filing 13 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Filed by Rita Mathiason. Jointly Signed by Shutterfly, LLC.(Balow, Blaine) |
Filing 12 (Text-Only) ORDER. Plaintiff has filed her #11 Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") improperly because she has already filed a #10 First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and filing an amended pleading during the initial pleadings of a case is only permitted "once as a matter of course" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Because the SAC is a second amended pleading, Plaintiff should have followed Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and sought either "the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Yet the Court also notes that Plaintiff's FAC and SAC differ in only one small substantive way: Plaintiff seeks to amend the identification of Defendant from "Shutterfly, Inc." to "Shutterfly, LLC". The Court notes that this change has been known to Plaintiff since Defendant Shutterfly's #6 Answer, filed on 5/11/22 (before Plaintiff filed her FAC), to the original Complaint. Nevertheless, the Court finds that there is good cause to permit Plaintiff to file this SAC to properly identify the parties. Defendant is directed to timely respond within 14 days of its filing to the SAC as the now-operative Complaint in this action. Ordered by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 6/14/2022. (JLD) |
Filing 11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Shutterfly, Inc.. filed by Rita Mathiason. No summons requested. (Balow, Blaine) |
Filing 10 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Shutterfly, Inc.. filed by Rita Mathiason. No summons requested. (Balow, Blaine) |
Filing 9 ORDER/NOTICE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Rule 26 Meeting Report and confidential letters due by 6/15/2022. Pretrial Conference set for 6/22/2022 at 11:00 AM via Telephone Conference (no courtroom) before Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 5/19/2022. (Attachments: #1 26(f) Template, #2 Consent Form)(TJS) |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Clayton D Halunen on behalf of Rita Mathiason. (Halunen, Clayton) |
Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Blaine L.M. Balow on behalf of Rita Mathiason. (Balow, Blaine) |
Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint filed by Shutterfly, Inc.. (Brinkman, Ellen) |
Filing 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Shutterfly, Inc. re #3 Declaration, #2 Rule 7.1 - Disclosure Statement, #1 Notice of Removal, (Brinkman, Ellen) |
Filing 4 (Text-Only) CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge David S. Doty per Civil (3rd, 4th - Civil Rights) list, referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. Please use case number 22-cv-1203 DSD/JFD.Notice: All Nongovernmental Corporate Parties must file a #Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. (CLK) |
Filing 3 DECLARATION of Michael Haas re #1 Notice of Removal, by Shutterfly, Inc. . (Brinkman, Ellen) |
Filing 2 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation or wholly-owned subsidiary to report for Shutterfly, Inc.. (Brinkman, Ellen) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Hennepin (filing fee $ 402, receipt number AMNDC-9491332) filed by Shutterfly, Inc.. No summons requested. (Attachments: #1 Summons and Complaint, #2 Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Brinkman, Ellen) |
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: Mathiason v. Shutterfly, Inc. | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Rita Mathiason | |
Represented By: | Blaine L.M. Balow |
Represented By: | Clayton D Halunen |
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: Shutterfly, Inc. | |
Represented By: | Erin Shanta Conlin |
Represented By: | Ellen A Brinkman |
Represented By: | Ellen Anne Brinkman |
Represented By: | Katie M Connolly |
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.