Kingharper, Sr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
| Brandon M. Kingharper, Sr. |
| Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| 4:2023cv00172 |
| March 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Roseann Ketchmark |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 451 Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 8, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Katherine Rhoten on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company.(Rhoten, Katherine) |
| Filing 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INITIAL RULE 26 DISCLOSURES filed by Raymond Dake on behalf of Plaintiff Brandon M. Kingharper, Sr..(Dake, Raymond) |
| Filing 12 Joint PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER by Brandon M. Kingharper, Sr.. (Dake, Raymond) |
| Filing 11 DESIGNATION OF MEDIATOR naming David Vogel(Dake, Raymond) |
| Filing 10 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Katherine Rhoten on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company.(Rhoten, Katherine) |
| Filing 9 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad Company.(Rhoten, Katherine) |
| Filing 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (PARTIAL) filed by Katherine Rhoten on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad Company. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/9/2023 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Suggestions in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss)(Rhoten, Katherine) |
| Mediation and Assessment Program Reminder: Your Designation of Mediator is due soon (filed as an ADR event in CM/ECF). See Notice of Inclusion and MAP General Order for specifics. (Houston, Kiambu) |
Filing 7
RULE 16 NOTICE. Rule 26 conference due by 4/22/2023. Proposed scheduling order due by 5/6/2023. Signed on March 23, 2023 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Wheeler, LaTandra)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER granting #4 Defendant's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Union Pacific Railroad Company answer due 4/25/2023. Signed on 3/23/2023 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Brown, Jonathan)
|
| Filing 5 RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Brandon M. Kingharper, Sr.. Union Pacific Railroad Company served on 3/14/2023, answer due 4/4/2023. (Dake, Raymond) |
| Filing 4 Consent MOTION for extension of time to file answer filed by Katherine Rhoten on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad Company. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/5/2023 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attorney Katherine Rhoten added to party Union Pacific Railroad Company(pty:dft))(Rhoten, Katherine) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of appearance by Robert L. Ortbals, Jr on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad Company (Attorney Robert L. Ortbals, Jr added to party Union Pacific Railroad Company(pty:dft))(Ortbals, Robert) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to Union Pacific Railroad Company. (Melvin, Greg) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NOTICE AND MAP GENERAL ORDER CAREFULLY FOR IMPORTANT CHANGES, DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.Notice of MAP assignment to an outside mediator. (Attachments: #1 MAP General Order)(Matthes Mitra, Renea) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Union Pacific Railroad Company filed by Raymond Dake on behalf of Brandon M. Kingharper, Sr.. Filing fee $402, receipt number AMOWDC-8364946. Service due by 6/8/2023 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Dake, Raymond) |
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 Western 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.
