LAGER v. STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC.
| GAIL LAGER |
| STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC. |
| 2:2020cv00988 |
| July 1, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| David S Cercone |
| J Nicholas Ranjan |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 23, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Sean P. Dawson on behalf of STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC.. (Dawson, Sean) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Terri Imbarlina Patak on behalf of STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC.. (Patak, Terri) |
| Filing 9 Proposed Rule 26(f) report (av) |
Filing 7
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Telephonic Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/24/2020 at 03:00 PM before Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan. Exchange of required Rule 26(a)(1) information due by 9/14/2020; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/14/2020; Stipulation Selecting ADR process due by 9/14/2020. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 7/23/2020. (av)
|
| Filing 6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by GAIL LAGER. STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC. waiver sent on 7/14/2020, answer due 9/14/2020. (Ruppert, Sean) |
| Filing 5 Summons Issued as to STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC. (ma) |
| Filing 4 Errata re #3 Praecipe to Issue Summons by GAIL LAGER. Reason for Correction: Incorrect case number on summons. (Attachments: #1 Summons) (Ruppert, Sean) |
| CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE re #3 Praecipe to Issue Summons. ERROR: Case number on Page 2 of Summons does not match caption and/or case number of case. CORRECTION: Attorney is directed to file an Errata with corrected case number. (ma) |
| Filing 3 PRAECIPE to Issue Summons by GAIL LAGER (Attachments: #1 Summons) (Ruppert, Sean) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Judge David S. Cercone no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 7/2/2020. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly)
|
| Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan is added. (cmc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC. (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $400, receipt number APAWDC-5730055), filed by GAIL LAGER. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2) (ma) |
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 Pennsylvania Western 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: LAGER v. STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: STO-ROX NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH COUNCIL, INC. | |
| Represented By: | Sean P. Dawson |
| Represented By: | Terri Imbarlina Patak |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: GAIL LAGER | |
| Represented By: | Sean L. Ruppert |
| 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.
