Couch v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
| Steven Couch |
| Union Pacific Railroad Co. |
| 8:2023cv00259 |
| June 12, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| Michael D Nelson |
| Robert F Rossiter |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 28, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 REPLY BRIEF in support of Response #9 , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM #6 by Attorney Scott P. Moore on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co..(Moore, Scott) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney Kiley N. Schmidt on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co. (Schmidt, Kiley) |
| Filing 11 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 identifying Corporate Parent Union Pacific Corporation for Union Pacific Railroad Co.. by Attorney Mark J. Goldsmith on behalf of Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Co., Union Pacific Corporation.(Goldsmith, Mark) |
| Filing 10 DECLARATION regarding Response #9 by Attorney Lucas J. Kaster on behalf of Plaintiff Steven Couch. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification, Harris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., No. 8:16-cv-381-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), ECF No. 249, #2 Exhibit 2 - Opening Brief for Appellant Union Pacific Railroad Company, Harris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., No. 19-1514 (8th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019), #3 Exhibit 3 - Reply Brief for Appellant Union Pacific Railroad Company, Harris v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., No. 19-1514 (8thCir. July 16, 2019))(Kaster, Lucas) |
| Filing 9 RESPONSE regarding MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM #6 by Attorney Lucas J. Kaster on behalf of Plaintiff Steven Couch.(Kaster, Lucas) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of regarding MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM #6 Request for Judicial Notice by Attorney Mark J. Goldsmith on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Goldsmith, Mark) |
| Filing 7 BRIEF in support of MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM #6 by Attorney Mark J. Goldsmith on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co..(Goldsmith, Mark) |
| Filing 6 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Attorney Mark J. Goldsmith on behalf of Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co..(Goldsmith, Mark) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co. on 6/14/2023. (Harksen, Jacob) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co. YOU MUST PRINT YOUR ISSUED SUMMONS, WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT. PAPER COPIES WILL NOT BE MAILED. (ADB) |
| Filing 3 TEXT NOTICE OF JUDGES ASSIGNED: Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson assigned. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(2), the parties are notified that, if all parties consent, a magistrate judge may conduct a civil action or proceeding, including a jury or nonjury trial, subject to the courts rules and policies governing the assignment of judges in civil cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; NEGenR 1.4. (ADB) |
| Filing 2 Summons Requested as to Union Pacific Railroad Co. regarding Complaint #1 . (Harksen, Jacob) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against Union Pacific Railroad Co. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANEDC-4881024), by Attorney Jacob Harksen on behalf of Steven Couch (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - UP Medical Rules)(Harksen, Jacob) |
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 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.
