DAS v. NANAK GROCERY, INC. et al
| MUTKI DAS |
| NANAK GROCERY, INC., KHADAG SINGH and DALBIR SINGH |
| 3:2022cv05566 |
| September 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Tonianne J Bongiovanni |
| Michael A Shipp |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by MUTKI DAS. NANAK GROCERY, INC. served on 9/27/2022, answer due 10/18/2022; DALBIR SINGH served on 9/27/2022, answer due 10/18/2022; KHADAG SINGH served on 9/27/2022, answer due 10/18/2022. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Affidavit, #3 Affidavit)(JAFFE, JODI) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by MUTKI DAS of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: #1 Supplement)(JAFFE, JODI) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to NANAK GROCERY, INC., DALBIR SINGH, KHADAG SINGH. Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. (mlh) |
| Judge Michael A. Shipp and Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni added. (mlh) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against NANAK GROCERY, INC., DALBIR SINGH, KHADAG SINGH ( Filing and Admin fee $ 402 receipt number ANJDC-13690979) with JURY DEMAND, filed by MUTKI DAS. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Summons, #4 Summons)(GLENN, ANDREW) |
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 New Jersey 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.
