State of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp.
Plaintiff: State of Missouri
Defendant: Starbucks Corp.
Case Number: 4:2025cv00165
Filed: February 11, 2025
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: John A Ross
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 7, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 7, 2025 Filing 17 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re #16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and (2) and for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12 (B)(6) filed by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Bennett, James)
April 7, 2025 Filing 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(1) and (2) and for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12 (B)(6) by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Bennett, James)
March 31, 2025 Filing 15 Docket Text ORDER: Re: #14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Esther Lander; ORDERED GRANTED. Signed by Sr. District Judge John A. Ross on 3/31/2025. (TLR)
March 31, 2025 Filing 14 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Esther Lander. The Certificate of Good Standing was attached.(Filing fee $150 receipt number AMOEDC-11170085) by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing for Esther Lander)(Lander, Esther)
March 12, 2025 Filing 13 ENTRY of Appearance by J. Patrick Sullivan for Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Sullivan, J.)
March 12, 2025 Filing 12 ENTRY of Appearance by Victoria Lowell for Plaintiff State of Missouri. (Lowell, Victoria)
March 7, 2025 Filing 11 CJRA ORDER (NMG). Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker termed. Case reassigned to Sr. District Judge John A. Ross and Sr. District Judge John A. Ross for all further proceedings (JMP)
March 4, 2025 Notice from Clerk instructing Defendant Starbucks Corp., Plaintiff State of Missouri to submit Notice regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. Notice re: Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction due by 3/11/2025. (KJS)
March 3, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 10 Docket Text ORDER granting #5 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer; answer due by April 7, 2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker on 3/3/25. (KJS)
February 28, 2025 Filing 9 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Starbucks Corp., BlackRock Finance, Inc... (Bennett, James)
February 28, 2025 Filing 8 ENTRY of Appearance by Philip Allen Cantwell for Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Cantwell, Philip)
February 28, 2025 Filing 7 ENTRY of Appearance by Ashanti D. Carey for Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Carey, Ashanti)
February 28, 2025 Filing 6 ENTRY of Appearance by James F. Bennett for Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Bennett, James)
February 28, 2025 Filing 5 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Defendant Starbucks Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Bennett, James)
February 13, 2025 Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by State of Missouri. Starbucks Corp. served on 2/13/2025, answer due 3/6/2025. (Donohue, Peter)
February 11, 2025 Filing 3 NOTICE OF PROCESS SERVER by Plaintiff State of Missouri Process Server: Stephen Waters (Donohue, Peter)
February 11, 2025 Filing 2 NOTICE of Filing Deficiency. In accordance with Eastern District of Missouri Local Rules and the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) Procedures Manual, a filing deficiency has been identified as follows: Notice of Process Server form not filed. This deficiency must be filed in the case record immediately. (JBH)
February 11, 2025 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against defendant Starbucks Corporation with receipt number AMOEDC-11082321, in the amount of $405 Non-Jury Demand,, filed by State of Missouri ex rel. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Original Filing Form, #3 Summons)(Donohue, Peter)
February 11, 2025 Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: Honorable Joseph S. Dueker. 1 Summons(es) issued and emailed to Peter Francis Donohue, Sr. 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. Pursuant to Local Rule 2.09, every nongovernmental corporate party or nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene in any case, and every party or intervenor in an action in which jurisdiction is based upon diversity, must file a Disclosure Statement immediately upon entering its appearance in the case. Please complete and file the certificate as soon as possible. # (moed-0001.pdf). (JBH)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 this case: State of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Missouri
Represented By: Peter Francis Donohue, Sr
Represented By: Victoria Lowell
Represented By: J. Patrick Sullivan
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: Starbucks Corp.
Represented By: Philip Allen Cantwell
Represented By: Ashanti D. Carey
Represented By: James F. Bennett
Represented By: Esther Gwen Lander
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?