Kestler v. Starbucks Corporation
| Cynthia Kestler |
| Starbucks Corporation |
| 2:2019cv00290 |
| February 15, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Richard F Boulware |
| Carl W Hoffman |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER Granting #12 Stipulation re Discovery and Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
|
| Filing 12 STIPULATION re Discovery and Protective Order by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2-2: In accordance with 28 USC 636(c) and FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference - Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge" form on the Court's website - #www.nvd.uscourts.gov. AO 85 Consent forms should NOT be electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form with the Clerk's Office. (A copy of form AO 85 has been mailed to parties not receiving electronic service.) (no image attached) (MR) |
|
Filing 10
SCHEDULING ORDER re #8 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 11/21/2019. Motions due by 12/20/2019. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 1/20/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
|
| Filing 9 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 8 PROPOSED Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order by Defendant Starbucks Corporation Special Scheduling Review Requested (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 7 STATEMENT REGARDING REMOVAL by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for #5 Minute Order Removal Case, #3 Certificate of Interested Parties, #2 Declaration,,,, #4 Notice (Other), Assign Judges in Civil Case, #1 Petition for Removal,, by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/19/2019. Statement regarding removed action is due by 3/6/2019. Joint Status Report regarding removed action is due by 3/21/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR) |
| Case randomly assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman. (MR) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS by Starbucks Corporation re #1 Petition for Removal,,. (Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Starbucks Corporation. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 2 DECLARATION of Lynn V. Rivera in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Petition for Removal of Action to United States District Court re #1 Petition for Removal, by Defendant Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Lynn V. Rivera in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Petition for Removal of Action to USDC, #2 Exhibit B to Declaration of Lynn V. Rivera in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Petition for Removal of Action to USDC, #3 Exhibit C to Declaration of Lynn V. Rivera in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Petition for Removal of Action to USDC, #4 Exhibit D to Declaration of Lynn V. Rivera in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Petition for Removal of Action to USDC, #5 Exhibit E to Declaration of Lynn V. Rivera in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Petition for Removal of Action to USDC, #6 Exhibit F to Declaration of Lynn V. Rivera in support of Defendant Starbucks Corporation's Petition for Removal of Action to USDC)(Rivera, Lynn) |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REMOVAL from Eight Judicial District Court Clark County, Case Number A-18-782247-C, (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0978-5434914) by Starbucks Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 to Petition, #2 Exhibit 2 to Petition, #3 Exhibit 3 to Petition, #4 Exhibit 4 to Petition, #5 Exhibit 5 to Petition, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rivera, Lynn) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
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 Nevada 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: Kestler v. Starbucks Corporation | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Cynthia Kestler | |
| Represented By: | Samantha Martin |
| 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 Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Lynn V. Rivera |
| 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.
