Smith v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.
Plaintiff: Stan Smith
Defendant: Pitney Bowes, Inc.
Case Number: 6:2021cv01422
Filed: September 27, 2021
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Presiding Judge: Michael J McShane
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1001
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 18 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: of Bryce Hanks and Substitution of Brenna McLaughlin Filed by Pitney Bowes, Inc.. (McLaughlin, Brenna)
November 8, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 17 Individual Party Consent to Jurisdiction by U.S. Magistrate Judge.
October 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 16 Answer to #1 Complaint, . Filed by Pitney Bowes, Inc.. (Hanks, Bryce)
October 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER: Granting Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice #14 admission requested by attorney Sarah Bryan Fask. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
October 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 14 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Sarah Bryan Fask. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8270404. Filed by Pitney Bowes, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Attachment Court Admission Dates) (Fask, Sarah)
October 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Clerk's Review of Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Pro Hac Vice admission requested by attorney Sarah Bryan Fask. Filing fee in the amount of $300 collected; Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8270404 #14 : Reviewed and Ready for Ruling. (ck)
October 13, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 13 Return of Service Executed (Attachments: #1 Attachment) (Hittle, David)
October 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 12 Notice of Appearance of Bryce W. Hanks appearing on behalf of Pitney Bowes, Inc.. Filed by Pitney Bowes, Inc.. (Hanks, Bryce)
October 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 11 Return of Service Executed as to Pitney Bowes, Inc. served on 10/6/2021, answer due on 10/27/2021. (Hittle, David)
October 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 Clerk's Notice of Pay.gov Refund regarding Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8246788. The request has been granted and the amount of $402.00 will be refunded to Vicki Miley Related Doc #6 Motion - Miscellaneous. (lp)
October 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 Proposed Summons Filed by Stan Smith. (Hittle, David)
September 30, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 8 Notice of Correction by Clerk regarding Motion - Miscellaneous #6 . A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record: The incorrect event was used. The following corrections were made to the record: The incorrect event was selected at filing, the event has been changed and docket text has been corrected. The Notice of Electronic Filing will be regenerated to all parties. (bd)
September 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 Summons Issued Electronically as to Pitney Bowes, Inc. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (bd)
September 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 Motion Request for Refund of Fees Paid Electronically. Filed by Stan Smith. (Attachments: #1 Attachment) (Hittle, David)
September 29, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 Proposed Summons Filed by Stan Smith. (Hittle, David)
September 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 A duplicate payment in the amount of $402.00 was submitted by Stan Smith in the above-referenced case. For information on refund procedures, visit #Requesting a Refund of Electronically Paid Fees on the Court website.. Refund Request is Due 10/8/2021. (nd)
September 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Summons Issued Electronically as to Pitney Bowes, Inc. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (bd)
September 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Michael J. McShane and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 1/25/2022. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 2/24/2022. Pretrial Order is due by 2/24/2022. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (bd)
September 27, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $402 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8246845 Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by Stan Smith against Pitney Bowes Inc. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons). (Hittle, David)

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stan Smith
Represented By: David W. Hittle
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: Pitney Bowes, Inc.
Represented By: Brenna McLaughlin
Represented By: Bryce W. Hanks
Represented By: Sarah Bryan Fask
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.


Why Is My Information Online?