Reitz v. Ingevity Corporation et al
| Benjamin N. Reitz |
| Ingevity Corporation and Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc. |
| 2:2020cv03320 |
| September 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Mary Gordon Baker |
| Bruce Howe Hendricks |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 TEXT ORDER granting #10 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. D. Faye Caldwell who represents Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc. is granted admission pro hac vice in this case. Entered at the Direction of The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 11/10/2020.(vdru, ) |
| Filing 14 First MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by D. Faye CaldwellN ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420-9464708) by Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc.. Response to Motion due by 11/24/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Mary Gordon Baker.(Heslop, Ashley) |
| Filing 13 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Ingevity Corporation. (Quisenberry, Brian) |
| Filing 12 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 7.1 by Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc..(Heslop, Ashley) |
| Filing 11 First MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc.. Response to Motion due by 11/23/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.Motions referred to Mary Gordon Baker.(Heslop, Ashley) |
| Filing 10 First MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc.. Response to Motion due by 11/23/2020. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission, #2 Proposed Order). (0420-9464708) Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Mary Gordon Baker.(Heslop, Ashley) Modified on 11/10/2020 to add receipt number to filing. (vdru, ). |
| Filing 9 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Ingevity Corporation.(Quisenberry, Brian) |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Ingevity Corporation.(Quisenberry, Brian) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Benjamin N. Reitz. Summons and Complaint served on All Defendants. Ingevity Corporation answer due 10/19/2020. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc answer due 10/21/2020. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certified Mail Return Receipt)(Mullaney, Marybeth) Modified docket text to add answer deadlines on 10/13/2020 (hada, ). |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Ingevity Corporation, Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc.. Service due by 12/17/2020 (hada, ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Benjamin N. Reitz.(hada, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ingevity Corporation, Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0420-9352118.), filed by Benjamin N. Reitz. Service due by 12/17/2020 (Attachments: #1 Supporting Documents)(hada, ) |
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 South Carolina 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.
