Schrader v. Henningsen Foods et al
Plaintiff: Amy Schrader
Defendant: Henningsen Foods and Q.P.
Case Number: 8:2009cv00033
Filed: January 22, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: Butler
Presiding Judge: Joseph F. Bataillon
Presiding Judge: Thomas D. Thalken
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 170 ORDER granting 169 Joint Stipulation for Dismissal. This action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, each party to pay her or its own costs. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (JAE)
August 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 168 ORDER - On or before August 20, 2010, the parties shall electronically file a joint stipulation for dismissal (or other dispositive stipulation) and shall submit to the Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, at bataillon@ned.uscourts.gov, a draft order which will fully dispose of the case. If the case is being dismissed, the stipulation shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and shall state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. Absent compliance with this order, this case (including all counterclaims and the like) may be dismissed without further notice. The pretrial conference and trial previously scheduled are cancelled and all pending motions are denied as moot upon the representation that this case is settled. Member Cases: 8:09-cv-00033-JFB -TDT, 8:09-cv-00170-JFB -TDT. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (AOA)
June 30, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 158 ORDER - The motion (Case No. 8:09cv33, Filing No. 151 , and Case No. 8:09cv170, Filing No. 98) is granted. Defendant Henningsen Foods, Inc. is therefore granted a further extension of time, from July 1, 2010 until July 12, 2010, to file and serve it s brief(s) and any motion(s) and additional evidence, in response and reply to Plaintiff's filings of June 4, 2010 as listed in the motion, and is further granted leave to file in connection therewith a supplemental index of evidence as a filing to which access is restricted to the Court and counsel of record under the E-Government Act. Member Cases: 8:09-cv-00033-JFB -TDT, 8:09-cv-00170-JFB -TDTOrdered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (GJG) Modified on 7/1/2010 to remove hyperlinks to filing 98 (GJG).
June 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 150 ORDER granting (149) Motion to Extend in case 8:09-cv-00033-JFB-TDT; and granting (96) Motion to Extend in case 8:09-cv-00170-JFB-TDT. Defendants shall have until 7/1/2010 to file documents. Member Cases: 8:09-cv-00033-JFB-TDT, 8:09-cv-00170-JFB-TDT Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (JAB)
May 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 120 PROTECTIVE ORDER granting (119) Motion for Protective Order in case 8:09cv33; granting (75) Motion for Protective Order in case 8:09cv170. Member Cases: 8:09cv33, 8:09cv170. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)
April 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 112 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiffs' motions to reconsider (Filing No. 79 in 8:09CV33 and Filing No. 37 in 8:09CV170) are denied; and Plaintiff Schrader's motion to amend the progression order (Filing No. 67 in 8:09CV33) is denied as moot. Member Cases: 8:09-cv-00033-JFB-TDT, 8:09-cv-00170-JFB-TDT Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (JAB)
March 3, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER denying (96) Motion for Hearing in case 8:09cv33 and (54) Motion for Hearing in case 8:09cv170. Plaintiffs Motion for Hearing regarding defendants objection to the subpoena duces tecum is denied without prejudice. Member Cases: 8:09cv33, 8:09cv170. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (BJC)
February 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 95 PROTECTIVE ORDER granting (93) Motion for Protective Order in case 8:09cv33; granting (51) Motion for Protective Order in case 8:09cv170. Member Cases: 8:09cv33, 8:09cv170. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (BJC)
February 11, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER granting (84) Motion to Compel in case 8:09-cv-00033-JFB-TDT; granting (42) Motion to Compel in case 8:09-cv-00170-JFB-TDT. The defendant shall have to on or before February 24, 2010, to provide supplemental responses to the plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 3. Member Cases: 8:09-cv-00033-JFB-TDT, 8:09-cv-00170-JFB-TDT. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (PMD)
December 1, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 82 ORDER that Amy Schrader v. Henningsen Foods, Inc., 8:09CV33, and Diane Morbach v. Henningsen Foods, Inc., 8:09CV170 are hereby consolidated for purposes of discovery only. Case No. 8:09CV33 is hereby designated as the "Lead Case." Case No. 8:09CV170 is hereby designated as the "Member Case." The parties are instructed to file all further documents (except those described in paragraph 5) in the Lead Case, No.8:09CV33, and to select the option "yes" in response to the System's question whether to spread the text. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (JSF)
November 20, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 78 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's motion to strike (Filing No. 25 ) is denied; Defendant Q.P.'s reasserted motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Filing No. 48 ) is granted; Defendant Q.P. is dismissed as a party to this action. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB, )
October 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 76 ORDER - This matter comes before the court after a telephone conference with counsel for the parties on October 16, 2009. A telephone planning conference will be held on November 30, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. with the undersigned magistrate judge. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the telephone conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (KBJ)
June 25, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant's motion to reassert, Filing No. 48 , is granted as set forth herein. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TJS )
June 23, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 47 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Henningsen's motion to dismiss, 22 , is denied as moot; Plaintiff's motion to strike, 27 , is denied as moot; Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, 46 , is granted and the RICO claims are dismissed from this lawsuit; Henningsen's motion to dismiss the RICO claims, 38 , is denied as moot; Plaintiff's motion to strike, 25 , is denied as moot; QP's motion to dismiss, 18 , is denied as moot. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (CJP)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Schrader v. Henningsen Foods 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: Amy Schrader
Represented By: Paul D. Boross
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: Henningsen Foods
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: Q.P.
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?