Meyers et al v. Catamount Marketing Group, Inc. et al
| Ernestine Washington, Patricia Roberts and Dammione Meyers |
| Christopher Landis, Karen Landis, Concelium, LLC, d/b/a Liberty Tax, Amy Clay, Catamount Marketing Group, Inc., d/b/a The Benefit Corner, Michael Landis, Catamount Marketing Group, Inc., Concelium, LLC, Karen B. Landis, Amy Shoe Clay, Michael S. Landis and Christopher Bryan Landis |
| 3:2018cv00551 |
| October 10, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Max O Cogburn |
| David Keesler |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER re #8 Response in Opposition to Motion. It is therefore, Ordered that to the extent that plaintiffs have included a Notice in its Response, plaintiffs are directed to consider Rule 15(a), as discussed in the Order, so as to avoid incurring unnecessary expense. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 12/7/2018. (chh)
|
| Filing 9 Attachment by Dammione Meyers, Patricia Roberts, Ernestine Washington. Attachment to #8 Response in Opposition to Motion (Adams, T.) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE in Opposition re #6 MOTION to Dismiss by Dammione Meyers, Patricia Roberts, Ernestine Washington. Replies due by 12/13/2018 plus an additional 3 days if served by mail (Adams, T.) |
| Filing 7 MEMORANDUM in Support re #6 MOTION to Dismiss by Catamount Marketing Group, Inc., Amy Shoe Clay, Concelium, LLC, Christopher Bryan Landis, Karen B. Landis, Michael S. Landis. (Gardner, Jared) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss by Catamount Marketing Group, Inc., Amy Shoe Clay, Concelium, LLC, Christopher Bryan Landis, Karen B. Landis, Michael S. Landis. Responses due by 12/5/2018 plus an additional 3 days if served by mail (Gardner, Jared) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER granting #4 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants shall have up to and including November 21, 2018 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 11/15/18. (mga)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Catamount Marketing Group, Inc., Amy Shoe Clay, Concelium, LLC, Christopher Bryan Landis, Karen B. Landis, Michael S. Landis. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gardner, Jared). Motions referred to David Keesler. |
|
Filing 3
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants shall have up to and including November 16, 2018 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 10/17/18. (mga)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Catamount Marketing Group, Inc., Amy Shoe Clay, Concelium, LLC, Christopher Bryan Landis, Karen B. Landis, Michael S. Landis. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Gardner, Jared). Motions referred to David Keesler. |
| Case assigned to District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr and Magistrate Judge David Keesler. Notice: You must click this link to retrieve the #Case Assignment Packet. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document.(brl) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Mecklenburg County Superior Court, case number 18-CVS-17619. (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0419-3832509), filed by Karen Landis, Christopher Landis, Catamount Marketing Group, Inc., d/b/a The Benefit Corner, Amy Clay, Michael Landis, Concelium, LLC, d/b/a Liberty Tax. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Process, Pleadings, and Orders)(Gardner, Jared) |
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.
- 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.
