Mauritz et al v. Lynn et al
| Matthew Mauritz and Nena Mauritz |
| Scott Lynn and Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A. |
| 2:2020cv00184 |
| October 2, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| John C Gargiulo |
| Halil S Ozerden |
| Michael T Parker |
| Keith Starrett |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 RESPONSE in Opposition re #2 MOTION to Remand filed by Scott Lynn (Adelman, Michael) |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE in Support re #2 MOTION to Remand filed by Matthew Mauritz, Nena Mauritz (Waide, Daniel) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE in Opposition re #2 MOTION to Remand filed by Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A. (Crutcher, R.) |
| Filing 12 SCOTT LYNN'S ANSWER to Complaint by Scott Lynn.(Adelman, Michael) |
| Filing 11 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A. (Crutcher, R.) |
| Filing 10 ANSWER to Complaint by Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A..(Crutcher, R.) |
Filing 9
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo for all further proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on 10/05/2020. (CS)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER OF RECUSAL. District Judge Keith Starrett recused. Case reassigned to District Judge Halil S. Ozerden for all further proceedings. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 10/05/2020. (CS)
|
| Filing 7 **ERROR, DISREGARD THIS ENTRY** Corporate Disclosure Statement by Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A. (Latino, Anne) Modified on 10/5/2020 (LDR). |
| Filing 6 **ERROR, DISREGARD THIS ENTRY** ANSWER to Complaint by Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A..(Latino, Anne) Modified on 10/5/2020 (LDR). |
|
Filing 5
ORDER staying discovery and disclosure requirements pending a ruling on the Motion to Remand. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 5, 2020 (KPM)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Adelman on behalf of Scott Lynn (Adelman, Michael) |
| DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #6 #7 : Inconsistent Login and Attorney Signature. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Section 2.C. and FED.R.Civ.P.11 an attorney's password issued by the court combined with the user's identification (login) serves as the attorney's signature for Rule 11 and other purposes. Documents #6, #7 will be disregarded and the attorney with the electronic signature on the documents should re-file document. (LDR) |
| Parties are advised to use the new judge assignment of HSO-JCG on future filed pleadings: 2:20-cv-00184-HSO-JCG. (CS) |
| Filing 3 MEMORANDUM in Support re #2 MOTION to Remand filed by Matthew Mauritz, Nena Mauritz (Waide, Daniel) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Remand by Matthew Mauritz, Nena Mauritz (Waide, Daniel) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A. from Circuit Court of Forrest County, Mississippi, case number W20-0082. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0538-4385527) If the complete state court record is not attached as an Exhibit to the Petition for Removal, pursuant to Rule L.U.Civ.R. 5(b): within 14 days removing party must electronically file the entire state court record as a single filing; and all parties shall, within fourteen days after the Case Management Conference, file as separate docket items any unresolved motions that were filed in state court which they wish to advance. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 State Court Record, #3 Documents Served Upon Clinic, #4 Executed Consent to Removal) (CS) |
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 Mississippi Southern 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.
