Paschall v. Starbucks Corporation
| Parrish Paschall |
| Starbucks Corporation |
| 1:2019cv09102 |
| October 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Deborah A Batts |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER. Document filed by Starbucks Corporation. (Schmidt, Jean) |
| Filing 5 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (Harman, Walker) |
| Filing 4 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Starbucks Corporation. (pc) |
| Case Designated ECF. (pc) |
| Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #http://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms.php. (pc) |
| CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Deborah A. Batts. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. (pc) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING CIVIL. CASE OPENING STATISTICAL ERROR CORRECTION: Notice to attorney Walker Green Harman, Jr.. The following case opening statistical information was erroneously selected/entered: Citizenship Defendant code 2 (Citizen of Another State);. The following correction(s) have been made to your case entry: the Citizenship Defendant code has been modified to 5 (Incorporated/Principal Place of Business-Other State);. (pc) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT CIVIL COVER SHEET. Notice to attorney Walker Green Harman, Jr. to RE-FILE Document No. #2 Civil Cover Sheet. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): Multiple natures of suit were selected. Choose one. (pc) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Starbucks Corporation, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Parrish Paschall. (Harman, Walker) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (Harman, Walker) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Starbucks Corporation. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-17695092)Document filed by Parrish Paschall.(Harman, Walker) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Paschall 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: Parrish Paschall | |
| Represented By: | Walker Green Harman, Jr. |
| 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 | |
| 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.
