Morgan v. 494 Eighth Avenue LLC et al
| Tamara Morgan |
| 494 Eighth Avenue LLC and Starbucks Coffee Company |
| 1:2023cv01821 |
| March 2, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Vernon S Broderick |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 17, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER: granting #16 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #16 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Lotus Cannon dated April 27, 2023. Application Granted. SO ORDERED. Starbucks Coffee Company answer due 5/31/2023. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 4/28/2023) (ama)
|
| Filing 16 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Lotus Cannon dated April 27, 2023. Document filed by Starbucks Coffee Company..(Cannon, Lotus) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER: granting #14 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #14 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer. addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Jeffrey Klarsfeld dated April 6, 2023. Application Granted. SO ORDERED. 494 Eighth Avenue LLC answer due 5/8/2023. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 4/10/2023) (ama)
|
| Filing 14 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Jeffrey Klarsfeld dated April 6, 2023. Document filed by 494 Eighth Avenue LLC..(Klarsfeld, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jeffrey Howard Klarsfeld on behalf of 494 Eighth Avenue LLC..(Klarsfeld, Jeffrey) |
|
Filing 12
STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT: Plaintiff, Tamara Morgan, and Defendant, Starbucks Corporation (incorrectly identified as "Starbucks Coffee Company" in the Complaint) ("Defendant"), by and through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the above-captioned action. Based on the service date of March 10, 2023, Defendant's responsive pleading is due on March 31, 2023. 2. Plaintiff consents to extend Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint, up to and including May 1, 2023. 3. The parties hereby consent to electronic service of all documents per Rule 5(b)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED. Motions terminated: #11 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #1 Complaint addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Lotus Cannon dated March 29, 2023. filed by Starbucks Coffee Company. Starbucks Coffee Company answer due 5/1/2023. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 3/30/2023) (tg)
|
| Filing 11 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #1 Complaint addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Lotus Cannon dated March 29, 2023. Document filed by Starbucks Coffee Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - So-Order Stipulation for Extension of Time).(Cannon, Lotus) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Lotus Cannon on behalf of Starbucks Coffee Company..(Cannon, Lotus) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John William Egan on behalf of Starbucks Coffee Company..(Egan, John) |
| Filing 8 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. Starbucks Coffee Company served on 3/10/2023, answer due 3/31/2023. Service was accepted by Sue Zouky, Authorized Agent in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York. Document filed by Tamara Morgan..(Hanski, Adam) |
| Filing 7 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. 494 Eighth Avenue LLC served on 3/10/2023, answer due 3/31/2023. Service was accepted by Sue Zouky, Authorized Agent in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York. Document filed by Tamara Morgan..(Hanski, Adam) |
| Filing 6 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Starbucks Coffee Company. (sj) |
| Filing 5 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to 494 Eighth Avenue LLC. (sj) |
| CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick. 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..(sj) |
| Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses 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. (sj) |
| Case Designated ECF. (sj) |
| Filing 4 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Starbucks Coffee Company, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Tamara Morgan..(Hanski, Adam) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to 494 Eighth Avenue LLC, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Tamara Morgan..(Hanski, Adam) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Hanski, Adam) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against 494 Eighth Avenue LLC, Starbucks Coffee Company. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-27414883)Document filed by Tamara Morgan..(Hanski, Adam) |
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
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.
