Clark v. Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC
| MIRANDA CLARK |
| TOWER AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS USA I, LLC d/b/a AUTOKINITON and Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC doing business as Autokiniton |
| 3:2024cv00037 |
| January 5, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| James R Knepp |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 28, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Case Management Conference Scheduling Order with case management conference to be held on 4/5/2024 at 11:30 AM before Judge James R. Knepp II. The conference will convene on the Court's bridge line with dial-in access information to be provided to counsel in advance of the call. Judge James R. Knepp II on 2/28/2024. (Attachments: #1 Report of Parties' Planning Meeting) (B,JL) |
| Filing 6 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC. (Tersigni, Vincent) |
| Filing 5 Answer to #1 Complaint, filed by Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC. (Tersigni, Vincent) |
| Filing 4 Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail executed upon Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC on 2/8/2024, filed on behalf of Miranda Clark (K,AR) |
| Filing 3 Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail executed upon Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC c/o Corporation Service Company Registered Agent on 2/6/2024, filed on behalf of Miranda Clark (K,AR) |
| Service by Clerk. Summons and Complaint addressed to Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC c/o Corporation Service Company placed in U.S. Mail. Type of service: certified mail. Receipt # 9589 0710 5270 1228 5661 77. (R,EM) |
| Service by Clerk. Summons and Complaint addressed to Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC placed in U.S. Mail. Type of service: certified mail. Receipt # 9589 0710 5270 1228 5661 84. (R,EM) |
| Filing 2 Original Summons and Magistrate Consent Form issued to counsel for service upon Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC and Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC c/o Corporation Service Company, Registered Agent. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form). (K,AR) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay. (K,AR) |
| Notice re Prompt Service. Counsel for Plaintiff is responsible for promptly serving the Complaint on Defendant(s) upon receiving the issued summons from the Clerk and, after service has been perfected, electronically filing a Return of Service or an executed Waiver of Service for each Defendant.Service is to be accomplished pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, which includes provisions for personal service and waiver of service, and Local Rule 4.2. If you wish the Clerk to serve the Complaint on Defendant(s) (a seldom used alternative because it does not save time or money), you must provide the Clerk's office with copies of the Complaint along with other necessary documents, in the manner set forth in Local Rule 4.2(a). (K,AR) |
| Judge James R. Knepp II assigned to case. (K,AR) |
| Filing 1 Complaint for Damages and Reinstatement with jury demand against Tower Automotive Operations USA I, LLC. Filing fee paid $ 405, Receipt number AOHNDC-12345128. Filed by Miranda Clark. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 EEOC Right-to-Sue, #3 Summons). (Shattuck, Taurean) |
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 Ohio Northern 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.
