Phifer v. City of Charlotte
| Aaron Phifer |
| City of Charlotte |
| 3:2019cv00027 |
| January 18, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Robert J Conrad |
| David Keesler |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 REPLY to Response to Motion re #4 MOTION to Strike #1 Notice of Removal, by City of Charlotte. (Lucchesi, Kathleen) |
| Filing 8 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #4 MOTION to Strike #1 Notice of Removal, by Aaron Phifer. Replies due by 3/11/2019 plus an additional 3 days if served by mail (Spyker, Jennifer) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Diane Spyker on behalf of Aaron Phifer (Spyker, Jennifer) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Phoebe Norton Coddington on behalf of City of Charlotte (Coddington, Phoebe) |
| Filing 5 MEMORANDUM in Support re #4 MOTION to Strike #1 Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint, by City of Charlotte. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Unpublished Caselaw)(Lucchesi, Kathleen) Modified text and regenerated NEF on 2/20/2019 (mga). |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Strike #1 Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint, by City of Charlotte. Responses due by 3/4/2019 plus an additional 3 days if served by mail (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Unpublished Caselaw)(Lucchesi, Kathleen) Modified text and removed exhibit on 2/20/2019 (mga). |
Filing 3
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant City of Charlotte shall file an Answer, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Complaint, on or before February 18, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 1/18/19. (mga)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: #1 Notice of Removal, by City of Charlotte. (Lucchesi, Kathleen). Motions referred to David Keesler. |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand from Mecklenburg County Superior Court, case number 18-cv-22611. (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0419-3915908), filed by City of Charlotte. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 -State Court Complaint, Summons, #2 Exhibit 2 - State Court Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal)(Lucchesi, Kathleen) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Robert J. Conrad, 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) |
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
| Search for this case: Phifer v. City of Charlotte | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: City of Charlotte | |
| Represented By: | Kathleen K. Lucchesi |
| Represented By: | Phoebe Norton Coddington |
| 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: Aaron Phifer | |
| Represented By: | Margaret (Meg) Behringer Maloney |
| Represented By: | Jennifer Diane Spyker |
| 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.
