Linzy v. Technologies, Inc.
| Shaarille Linzy |
| Uber Technologies, Inc. |
| 1:2021cv05097 |
| June 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Alison J Nathan |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 au |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 21, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
FIRST REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #5 FIRST MOTION to Remand . . Document filed by Shaarille Linzy..(Gammons, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 11
REPLY AFFIRMATION of Matthew T. Gammons in Opposition re: #5 FIRST MOTION to Remand .. Document filed by Shaarille Linzy..(Gammons, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #8 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re #8 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #5 FIRST MOTION to Remand . #7 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Matthew T. Gammons dated July 21, 2021. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to submit a reply is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 8. Going forward, the parties are instructed to confer prior to making requests and indicate in their letter whether the opposing party consents. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/28/2021) (vfr)
|
|
Filing 9
LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Andrew N. Fluger dated July 28, 2021 re: #8 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #5 FIRST MOTION to Remand ., #7 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Matthew T. Gammons dated July 21, 2021. . Document filed by Uber Technologies, Inc...(Fluger, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 8
FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #5 FIRST MOTION to Remand ., #7 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Matthew T. Gammons dated July 21, 2021. Document filed by Shaarille Linzy..(Gammons, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 7
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: #5 FIRST MOTION to Remand . . Document filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Remand).(Fluger, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 10/1/2021 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 906, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Parties ordered to submit via ECF proposed case management plan and joint letter seven days before conference. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/29/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing 5
FIRST MOTION to Remand . Document filed by Shaarille Linzy. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Law, #2 Exhibit S&C 1st Action, #3 Exhibit Answer 1st Action, #4 Exhibit Excerpt from Defendant EBT, #5 Exhibit S&C 2nd Action, #6 Exhibit Answer 2nd Action, #7 Exhibit Proposed Stip to Consolidate, #8 Exhibit Notice of Removal).(Gammons, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew Neil Fluger, I on behalf of Uber Technologies, Inc...(Fluger, Andrew)
|
|
CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. 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 #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(vf)
|
|
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron 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: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (vf)
|
|
Case Designated ECF. (vf)
|
|
Filing 3
FIRST RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Uber Technologies, Inc...(Zisser, Derek)
|
|
Filing 2
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from New York, County of Bronx. Case Number: 801741/2021E. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-24652412).Document filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit S&C, #2 Exhibit Answer, #3 Exhibit discovery demands, #4 Exhibit Pl's Bill of Particulars, #5 Exhibit Delaware).(Zisser, Derek)
|
|
Filing 1
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Zisser, Derek)
|
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: Linzy v. Technologies, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Derek Michael Zisser |
| Represented By: | Andrew Neil Fluger, I |
| 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: Shaarille Linzy | |
| Represented By: | Matthew Trafton Gammons |
| 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.
