Webb v. BenefitMall
| Clinton Webb |
| BenefitMall |
| 3:2019cv01010 |
| November 14, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| William L Campbell |
| Waverly D Crenshaw |
| Alistair Newbern |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 0701 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ORDER granting #13 Motion to Continue Case Management Conference. The initial case management conference is RESET for January 31, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint proposed initial case management order no later than 3 days before the conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern on 1/8/2020. (gb)
|
| Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference RESET for 1/31/2020 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 774 before Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern. (gb) |
| Filing 13 MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO JANUARY 31, 2020 by Clinton Webb. (Gilbert, Justin) |
| Filing 12 AFFIDAVIT re Annotation - Deficiency Notice,,, #10 MOTION for attorney Laurie N. Patton and James T. Drakeley to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number 0650-3059197) Affidavit of James T. Drakeley in Support of Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by BenefitMall. (Crider, Marcus) |
| Filing 11 AFFIDAVIT re Annotation - Deficiency Notice,,, #10 MOTION for attorney Laurie N. Patton and James T. Drakeley to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number 0650-3059197) Affidavit of Laurie N. Patton in Support of Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by BenefitMall. (Crider, Marcus) |
| TX State Bar status verified as active for Laurie N. Patton and James T. Drakeley. (vh) Modified on 1/7/2020 (vh). |
| NOTICE TO FILER re DE#10 : The pending pro hac vice motion does not comply with the Court's local rules, because the motion fails to state whether any disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges have been instituted against the attorney seeking pro hac vice admission. Local Rule 83.01(b)(2). By no later than five (5) business days from the date of this docket annotation, the pro hac vice motion must be supplemented by the filing of a statement under oath of the attorney seeking pro hac vice admission disclosing whether any disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges have been instituted against the attorney, and if so, providing complete details about the proceeding or charges, including outcome. Failure to do so will result in denial of the pro hac vice motion. (vh) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for attorneys Laurie N. Patton and James T. Drakeley to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number 0650-3059197) by BenefitMall. (Attachments: #1 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing for Laurie N. Patton, #2 Attachment Certificate of Good Standing for James T. Drakeley, #3 Attachment Proposed Order)(Crider, Marcus) Modified on 1/7/2020 (vh). |
|
Filing 9
ORDER OF RECUSAL: Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr recused. (Case randomly reassigned to District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr by the Clerk's Office for all further proceedings). Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 12/23/2019. (mg)
|
| Filing 8 BUSINESS ENTITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by BenefitMall. (Attachments: #1 Attachment Additional Information and Certificate of Service)(Crider, Marcus) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by BenefitMall.(Crider, Marcus) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for customized case management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01 and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Lead counsel for the parties shall attend the initial case management conference. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 11/20/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/14/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 774 before Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern. (jm) |
| Filing 4 Summons issued as to BenefitMall. (Service copies will be returned to counsel by mail.) (jm) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (jm) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Business Entity Disclosure Statement filing requirement. (jm) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against BenefitMall (Filing fee $400, Receipt number 0650-3031423), filed by Clinton Webb. (Attachments: #1 Attachment Civil Cover Sheet)(jm) |
| TN State Bar status verified as active for Justin S. Gilbert. (jm) |
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 Tennessee Middle 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: Webb v. BenefitMall | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: BenefitMall | |
| Represented By: | Marcus M. Crider |
| Represented By: | James T. Drakeley |
| Represented By: | Laurie N. Patton |
| 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: Clinton Webb | |
| Represented By: | Justin S. Gilbert |
| 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.
