Karsten v. Trileaf Corporation
Karin Karsten |
Trileaf Corporation |
4:2022cv00010 |
January 4, 2022 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
John M Bodenhausen |
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 23 ORDER OF REMAND: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count II is dismissed with prejudice and that this matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 03/01/2022. (ANP) |
***REMARK - Copy of remand order and docket sheet emailed to A. Harvey and T. Caldwell with Circuit Court St. Louis County Clerk's Office this date. (ANP) |
Filing 22 SURREPLY to Motion re #14 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court filed by Defendant Trileaf Corporation. (NEP) |
Filing 21 Docket Text ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Leave to File sur-reply brief is GRANTED (Doc. #18 ). The Clerk of Court is directed to file the sur-reply brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 2/24/22. (SGP) |
Filing 20 MEMORANDUM re #19 Joint Scheduling Plan by Plaintiff Karin Karsten. (Faron, Michelle) |
Filing 19 JOINT SCHEDULING PLAN by Plaintiff Karin Karsten. . (Faron, Michelle) |
Filing 18 MOTION for Leave to File a Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal and Motion to Remand by Defendant Trileaf Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Sur-reply)(McMillen, Joy) |
Filing 17 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Plaintiff Karin Karsten. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Proposed Amended Complaint)(Faron, Michelle) |
Filing 16 REPLY to Response to Motion re #14 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court filed by Plaintiff Karin Karsten. (Faron, Michelle) |
Filing 15 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #14 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court filed by Defendant Trileaf Corporation. (McMillen, Joy) |
Filing 14 MOTION TO REMAND AND NOTICE OF DISMISSAL by Plaintiff Karin Karsten (Schaeffer, John) Modified on 1/31/2022 (KEK). |
Filing 13 ORDER SETTING RULE 16 CONFERENCE. This case is assigned to Track: 2. Joint Scheduling Plan due by 2/24/2022. Rule 16 Conference set for 3/3/2022 09:30 AM in Zoom Video Conference before Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen... SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 01/21/2022. (ANP) |
Filing 12 FULL CONSENT has been received by Plaintiff Karin Karsten, Defendant Trileaf Corporation. (KEK) |
Filing 11 ENTRY of Appearance by Michelle Katherine Faron for Plaintiff Karin Karsten. (Faron, Michelle) |
Filing 10 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (Potter, Jacob) |
Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint by Trileaf Corporation.(McMillen, Joy) |
Filing 8 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendant Trileaf Corporation Sent To: State Court - Executed (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(McMillen, Joy) |
Filing 7 ENTRY of Appearance by Devin Hayes for Defendant Trileaf Corporation. (Hayes, Devin) |
Filing 6 ENTRY of Appearance by Matthew Joseph Haas for Defendant Trileaf Corporation. (Haas, Matthew) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Defendant Trileaf Corporation Sent To: Plaintiff (McMillen, Joy) |
Filing 4 Petition (Removal/Transfer) Received From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, filed by Karin Karsten. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(JKL) |
Filing 3 DISCLOSURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL INTERESTS CERTIFICATE by Defendant Trileaf Corporation. Parent companies: None, Subsidiaries: None, Publicly held company: None,. (McMillen, Joy) |
Filing 2 ENTRY of Appearance by Joy D. McMillen for Defendant Trileaf Corporation. (McMillen, Joy) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from St. Louis County, case number 21SL-CC05465, with receipt number AMOEDC-9056795, in the amount of $402 Jury Demand,, filed by Trileaf Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Original Filing Form)(McMillen, Joy) |
Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: Honorable John M. Bodenhausen. All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. (JKL) |
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 Missouri Eastern 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: Karsten v. Trileaf Corporation | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Karin Karsten | |
Represented By: | John Clayton Schaeffer |
Represented By: | Michelle Katherine Faron |
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: Trileaf Corporation | |
Represented By: | Devin Hayes |
Represented By: | Joy D. McMillen |
Represented By: | Matthew Joseph Haas |
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.