Matos v. The Long Island Railroad Company
| Mauricio Matos |
| The Long Island Railroad Company |
| 1:2019cv05145 |
| September 10, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Dora Lizette Irizarry |
| Vera M Scanlon |
| Federal Employer's Liability |
| 45 U.S.C. ยง 51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 4, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 First MOTION to Adjourn Conference of 11/5/2019 at 2:30pm by The Long Island Railroad Company. (Pogan, Christopher) |
| Filing 10 Proposed Scheduling Order by Mauricio Matos (Chiatto, Elizabeth) |
ORDER: The Parties failed to file the joint proposed scheduling order per this Court's #9 Order. The Parties are to file the proposed order by 11/4/2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 11/4/2019. (Quinlan, Krista)
|
| Initial Conference set for 12/10/2019 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 13A South before Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon. (Oliner, Daniel) |
|
ORDER granting #11 Motion to Adjourn Conference. The parties' request to adjourn the initial conference is granted. The adjourned initial conference will be held on 12/10/2019 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 13A South before Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon. The parties shall file an amended proposed scheduling order on or before 12/4/2019. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 11/4/2019. (Oliner, Daniel) Modified on 11/4/2019 to correct the time of conference (Oliner, Daniel).
|
|
Filing 9
SCHEDULING ORDER: As set forth in the attached Order, an Initial Conference is scheduled for 11/5/2019 at 2:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Scanlon in Courtroom 13A South. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to confirm with Defendant's counsel that all necessary participants are aware of this conference. Counsel must complete the attached joint proposed scheduling order and file on ECF no later than 10/31/2019. Any requests for adjournment must be made in writing on notice to opposing parties, and must disclose whether all parties consent. No request for adjournment will be considered unless made at least forty-eight (48) hours before the scheduled conference unless in an emergency. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 10/7/2019. (Quinlan, Krista)
|
| Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mauricio Matos. The Long Island Railroad Company served on 10/3/2019, answer due 10/24/2019. (Chiatto, Elizabeth) |
| Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by The Long Island Railroad Company identifying Corporate Parent MTA & LIRR, Corporate Parent MTA for The Long Island Railroad Company. (Pogan, Christopher) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by The Long Island Railroad Company. (Pogan, Christopher) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher J Pogan on behalf of The Long Island Railroad Company (aty to be noticed) (Pogan, Christopher) |
| Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to The Long Island Railroad Company. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Case assigned to Chief Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry and Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against The Long Island Railroad Company filing fee $ 400, receipt number ANYEDC-11833112 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Mauricio Matos. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Vogt, Philip) |
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 York Eastern 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: Matos v. The Long Island Railroad Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: The Long Island Railroad Company | |
| Represented By: | Christopher J Pogan |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Mauricio Matos | |
| Represented By: | Philip Patrick Vogt |
| 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.
