Surgeon v. Midas Hospitality, LLC
| Wendy Surgeon |
| Midas Hospitality, LLC |
| 3:2022cv00115 |
| March 16, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Max O Cogburn |
| David Keesler |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
REPLY to response to Motion re #5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint MOTION to Strike Allegations by Midas Hospitality, LLC. (Marcus, Geoffrey) Modified text on 5/4/2022 (ams).
|
|
Filing 7
RESPONSE in Opposition re #5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint MOTION to Strike Allegations by Wendy Surgeon. Replies due by 5/4/2022 (Littlejohn, Micheal)
|
|
Filing 6
MEMORANDUM/BRIEF in support of defendant's partial motion to dismiss and motion to strike allegations by Midas Hospitality, LLC re: #5 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike (Marcus, Geoffrey)
|
|
Filing 5
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, MOTION to Strike Allegations by Midas Hospitality, LLC. Responses due by 4/27/2022 (Marcus, Geoffrey). Modified to remove referral on 4/14/2022 (mga).
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #3 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 complaint contained in the Notice of Removal. Midas Hospitality, LLC answer due 4/13/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 3/18/22. (mga)
|
|
Filing 3
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint by Midas Hospitality, LLC. (Marcus, Geoffrey). Motions referred to David Keesler.
|
|
Filing 2
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Midas Hospitality, LLC (Marcus, Geoffrey)
|
|
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.(tlj)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand from Mecklenburg County Superior Court, 22-CVS-1292. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANCWDC-5484751), filed by Midas Hospitality, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Application and Order Extending Time to File Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Civil Summons, #3 Exhibit C - Complaint, #4 Exhibit D - Charge of Discrimination, #5 Exhibit E - Dismissal & Notice of Rights, #6 Exhibit F - USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt, #7 Exhibit G - Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal)(Marcus, Geoffrey) Modified docket text on 3/17/2022 (tlj).
|
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: Surgeon v. Midas Hospitality, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Wendy Surgeon | |
| Represented By: | Micheal L. Littlejohn |
| 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: Midas Hospitality, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Elizabeth A. Martineau |
| Represented By: | Geoffrey Alexander Marcus |
| 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.
