GUZMAN v. FARMER'S PRIDE, INC. et al
| DORIS GUZMAN |
| SCOTT I. SECHLER, DANIEL P. CHIRICO and FARMER'S PRIDE, INC. |
| 2:2019cv05992 |
| December 13, 2019 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| GERALD J PAPPERT |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2003 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMLAINT. PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 12, 2020. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHALL BE DUE TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING THE FILING OF PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 1/30/20. 1/30/20 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va, )
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by DANIEL P. CHIRICO, FARMER'S PRIDE, INC., SCOTT I. SECHLER.Certificate of Service.(WELCH, JILL) |
| Filing 1 Complaint against DANIEL P. CHIRICO, FARMER'S PRIDE, INC. and SCOTT I. SECHLER (Filing fee $400 receipt number PPE208583) filed by DORIS GUZMAN. (Attachments: #1 Civil Coversheets)(mbh, ) |
| 3 Summonses Issued as to DANIEL P. CHIRICO, FARMER'S PRIDE, INC. and SCOTT I. SECHLER. Forwarded To: counsel on 12/20/19 (mbh, ) |
| Demand for Trial by Jury.(mbh, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
