Matos v. AT&T Corporation et al
Plaintiff: Maritza Matos
Defendant: Jane Doe, Debbie Garett and AT&T Corporation
Case Number: 1:2018cv06506
Filed: July 18, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Colleen McMahon
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e-2e Job Discrimination (Unlawful Employment Practices)
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 3, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, and note service on the docket. Plaintiff is directed to show cause within thirty days from the date of this order why this matter should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. A declaration form is attached for Plaintiff's convenience. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 8/3/2018) (rdz)
August 3, 2018 Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: #3 Order to Show Cause, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (rdz)
August 3, 2018 Mailed a copy of #3 Order to Show Cause, to Maritza Matos 131 West 137th Street Apt. 4D New York, NY 10030. (vba)
August 3, 2018 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Colleen McMahon. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (rdz)
July 18, 2018 Filing 2 COMPLAINT against AT&T Corporation, Jane Doe, Debbie Garett. Document filed by Maritza Matos.(sac)
July 18, 2018 Filing 1 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Maritza Matos.(sac)
July 18, 2018 Case Designated ECF. (sac)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Matos v. AT&T Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jane Doe
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: Debbie Garett
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: AT&T Corporation
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: Maritza Matos
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.


Why Is My Information Online?