Dutta v. Le
| Sushil Kumar Dutta |
| Thanh D. Le |
| 3:2022cv00035 |
| February 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Caroline H Gentry |
| Michael J Newman |
| Sharon L Ovington |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING A PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE - The parties Rule 26(f) report shall be filed with the Court on or before April 4, 2022. Preliminary Pretrial Scheduling Conference set for April 11, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. by Teleconference before Judge Michael J. Newman. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 3/1/2022. (bjr)
|
| Filing 8 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, filed by All Defendants. (Brannon, Dwight) |
|
NOTATION ORDER granting #6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Joshua Sanford as Co-Counsel. Co-Counsel is directed to register for e-filing through PACER unless they have done so previously. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry on 2/9/2022. (bjr)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 2/8/22. (jcw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee of $200 paid, receipt number AOHSDC-8711881) of Josh Sanford by Plaintiff Sushil Kumar Dutta. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (DeRose, Robert) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Thanh D. Le. (bjr) (Main Document 5 replaced to correct case number on 2/4/2022) (bjr). |
| Filing 4 REQUEST for Issuance of Summons. (DeRose, Robert) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Plaintiff Sushil Kumar Dutta re #1 Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet (DeRose, Robert) |
| Filing 2 Notice by Clerk of Southern District of Ohio of Pro Hac Vice Rules as to Attorney Josh Sanford. (bjr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Thanh D. Le ( Filing fee $ 402 paid - receipt number: AOHSDC-8706016), filed by Sushil Kumar Dutta. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons Form) (DeRose, Robert) Modified on 2/3/2022 to civil cover sheet and summons that were filed as editable documents. (bjr) |
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 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
| Search for this case: Dutta v. Le | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sushil Kumar Dutta | |
| Represented By: | Robert E DeRose, II |
| Represented By: | Joshua Sanford |
| 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: Thanh D. Le | |
| Represented By: | Dwight Dean Brannon |
| 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.
