Shipman v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Dominique Shipman
Defendant: Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. doing business as Ulta Beauty, Ulta Beauty, Inc. doing business as Ulta Beauty, City of Roseville and Officer Joe Cox
Case Number: 0:2024cv00091
Filed: January 11, 2024
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Presiding Judge: Nancy E Brasel
Referring Judge: John F Docherty
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 22, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER on #18 Stipulation. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 2/22/2024.(TJS)
February 21, 2024 Filing 20 ANSWER to #15 Amended Complaint filed by City of Roseville, Joe Cox. (McEllistrem, Tessa)
February 21, 2024 Filing 19 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #18 Stipulation. (MacDonald, Erica)
February 21, 2024 Filing 18 STIPULATION to Extend Ulta Defendants Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by Ulta Beauty, Inc., Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.. Jointly Signed by Dominique Shipman. (MacDonald, Erica)
February 9, 2024 Filing 17 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 1/29/2024 before Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. (11 pages). Court Reporter: Renee Rogge. For a copy of the transcript, please file a Transcript Request under Other Filings/Other Documents.Parties have 21 days to file a Statement of Redaction. In accordance with Judicial Conference policy and #Local Rule 80.1, the transcript may be released and made remotely electronically available to the public in 90 days. For further information on redaction procedures, please review #Local Rule 5.5 and #Case Information >Transcripts, Court Reporters and Digital Audio Recordings. Statement of Redaction due 3/1/2024. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/11/2024. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/9/2024. (RAR)
February 8, 2024 Filing 16 EXPEDITED DAILY TRANSCRIPT SERVICES REQUEST to Court Reporter Renee Rogge. (Tawfic, Kacie)
February 7, 2024 Filing 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. filed by Dominique Shipman. No summons requested. (Frank, Matthew)
January 29, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 14 (Text-Only) MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 1/29/2024: Oral Arguments Motion Hearing.Court Reporter: Renee RoggeSt. Paul Courthouse, Courtroom Edward J. Devitt CourtroomTime: 10:00 - 10:13 amTotal Time: 13 min.APPEARANCES:For Plaintiff: Matthew FrankFor Defendant Ulta Beauty: John Ursu, Erica MacDonald For Defendants City of Roseville and Officer Cox: Tessa McEllistrem PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on: #6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Ulta Beauty, Inc. The motion was moved, argued, and granted. No written order will issue. Defendant Ulta Beauty, Inc. shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint on or before February 16, 2024. Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc. shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint on or before February 16, 2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.(ATB)
January 22, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 13 (Text-Only) ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Defendants Ulta Beauty, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.'s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer #6 . Briefing on the motion is now closed, and the Court will schedule this motion to be heard on Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in the Edward J. Devitt Courtroom on the first floor of the federal courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, Saint Paul. Ordered by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 1/22/2024. (TJS)
January 19, 2024 Filing 12 DECLARATION of Matthew A. Frank in Opposition to #6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Dominique Shipman.(Frank, Matthew)
January 19, 2024 Filing 11 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Dominique Shipman. (Attachments: #1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Frank, Matthew)
January 18, 2024 Filing 10 ANSWER to Complaint filed by City of Roseville, Joe Cox. (McEllistrem, Tessa)
January 16, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 9 (Text-Only) ORDER in Response to #6 Motion for Extension: Defendants Ulta Beauty, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. have filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, which is opposed by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2) the answer or other response is currently due on January 18, 2024. Under L.R. 7.1(b)(2) Plaintiff's response to the extension motion is due by January 19, 2024, the day after the due date for the answer. Since it is not possible for the Court to rule on the extension motion before the answer is due, the deadline for Defendants Ulta Beauty, Inc. and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. to answer or otherwise respond is hereby stayed pending resolution of this motion. The Court will determine whether to hold a hearing on the motion once briefing is complete and will set a new due date for an answer once the extension motion is decided. Ordered by Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty on 1/16/2024. (TJS)
January 12, 2024 Filing 8 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Ulta Beauty, Inc., Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc..(MacDonald, Erica)
January 12, 2024 Filing 7 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re #6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Ulta Beauty, Inc., Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc..(MacDonald, Erica)
January 12, 2024 Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Ulta Beauty, Inc., Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.. (MacDonald, Erica)
January 12, 2024 Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Mollie Buelow on behalf of City of Roseville, Joe Cox. (Buelow, Mollie)
January 12, 2024 Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Tessa M McEllistrem on behalf of City of Roseville, Joe Cox. (McEllistrem, Tessa)
January 12, 2024 Filing 3 (Text-Only): Notice re: Non-Admitted AttorneyWe have received documents listing Jack Leon as counsel of record. If he or she wishes to be listed as an attorney of record in this case, he or she must be admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in accordance with #Local Rule 83.5 (a), (b) and (c) or temporarily admitted pro hac vice in accordance with #Local Rule 83.5 (d) or (e).For more admissions information and forms, please see the Attorney Forms Section of the courts website at #www.mnd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms#. (MKB)
January 12, 2024 Filing 2 (Text-Only) CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Nancy E. Brasel per Civil (3rd, 4th - Civil Rights) list, referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. Please use case number 24-cv-91 (NEB/JFD).Notice: All Nongovernmental Corporate Parties must file a #Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. (MKB)
January 11, 2024 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (filing fee $ 405, receipt number AMNDC-10769665) filed by Ulta Beauty, Inc. d/b/a Ulta Beauty, Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. d/b/a Ulta Beauty. No summons requested. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A Summons and Complaint, #2 Exhibit(s) B Consent to Removal, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (MacDonald, Erica) Modified text on 1/12/2024 (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 this case: Shipman v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dominique Shipman
Represented By: Matthew A Frank
Represented By: Stephen M Premo
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: Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. doing business as Ulta Beauty
Represented By: Erica H MacDonald
Represented By: John W. Ursu
Represented By: Kacie Jo Phillips Tawfic
Represented By: Terran C. Chambers
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: Ulta Beauty, Inc. doing business as Ulta Beauty
Represented By: Erica H MacDonald
Represented By: John W. Ursu
Represented By: Kacie Jo Phillips Tawfic
Represented By: Terran C. Chambers
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: City of Roseville
Represented By: Mollie Buelow
Represented By: Tessa M McEllistrem
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: Officer Joe Cox
Represented By: Mollie Buelow
Represented By: Tessa M McEllistrem
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.


Why Is My Information Online?