Martinez v. Nike, Inc.
| Pedro Martinez |
| Nike, Inc. |
| 1:2023cv04733 |
| June 26, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| James R Cho |
| Diane Gujarati |
| Cheryl L Pollak |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1201 Civil Rights (Disability) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Pedro Martinez. Nike, Inc. waiver sent on 7/26/2023, answer due 9/25/2023. (Shaked, Dan) |
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge James R. Cho for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak no longer assigned to case 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.Ordered by Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie on 7/12/2023. (SR)
|
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Nike, Inc.. (KD) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) |
| Filing 2 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. (KD) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Nike, Inc. filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-16829506 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -YES,, filed by Pedro Martinez. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons) (Shaked, Dan) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Diane Gujarati and Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak. 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. (KD) |
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: Martinez v. Nike, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Pedro Martinez | |
| Represented By: | Dan Shaked |
| 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: Nike, Inc. | |
| 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.
