Inabinet v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health
| Crystal T. Inabinet |
| South Carolina Department of Mental Health |
| 3:2022cv03029 |
| September 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Paige J Gossett |
| Mary Geiger Lewis |
| Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 2601 Family Medical Leave Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Plaintiff's Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Crystal T. Inabinet.(Hicks, Ryan) |
| Filing 11 Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(Hodges, Robert) |
| Filing 10 Joint Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(Hodges, Robert) |
| Filing 9 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(Hodges, Robert) |
| Filing 7 REPLY to Response to Motion re #4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Response filed by South Carolina Department of Mental Health. (Hodges, Robert) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE in Opposition re #4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Response filed by Crystal T. Inabinet.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/5/2022 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Hicks, Ryan) |
Filing 5
SCHEDULING ORDER Rule 26 Report due by 10/19/2022, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 12/14/2022, Discovery due by 4/5/2023, Motions due by 4/19/2023, Mediation Due by 6/14/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 9/15/2022. (dist)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by South Carolina Department of Mental Health. Response to Motion due by 9/28/2022. 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, #2 Exhibit A-Charge of Discrimination)No proposed order.Motions referred to Paige J Gossett.(Hodges, Robert) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by South Carolina Department of Mental Health.(dist) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Richland Common Pleas, case number 2022CP4004086. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ASCDC-10687748), filed by South Carolina Department of Mental Health. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(dist) |
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
| Search for this case: Inabinet v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Crystal T. Inabinet | |
| Represented By: | Ryan Kyle Hicks |
| 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: South Carolina Department of Mental Health | |
| Represented By: | Robert Hayne Hodges, III |
| 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.
