Roundtree v. Raytheon Technologies Corp
| Heather Davis, Marian Payne, Latoya Stuart, Billy Kelly and Sylvia Matthews |
| Raytheon Technologies Corp |
| 3:2024cv00743 |
| March 28, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| Barbara M G Lynn |
| Civil Rights: Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 56
ORDER granting #54 Motion to Sever. New Case opened 3:24-CV-00743 for severed matter. (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 3/28/2024) (kaf)
|
|
Filing 55
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Granting in part and denied in part #34 Motion to Dismiss filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp. All claims arising out of events prior to 11/30/2018, are dismissed with prejudice as barred by limitations. (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 3/28/2024) (kaf)
|
|
Filing 54
Unopposed MOTION to Sever filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 53
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #47 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Elizabeth L. Humphrey. Important Reminder: Unless excused for cause, an attorney who is not an ECF user must register within 14 days of the date the attorney appears in a case pursuant to LR 5.1(f) and LCrR 49.2(g). (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 11/13/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 52
JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 11/9/2023) (mcrd)
|
|
Filing 51
ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David L. Horan: Motion Hearing held on 11/9/2023 re: #39 #39 MOTION Motion to Inspect Premises, #41 MOTION to Request an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court. Attorney Appearances: Plaintiff - Elizabeth Jane Sanford; Defense - Raymond C Baldwin. (Court Reporter: Todd Anderson) (No exhibits) Time in Court - :37. (mcrd)
|
|
Filing 50
ELECTRONIC ORDER denying #39 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Inspect Premises. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(2) "permits a party to serve on another party a request 'to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation thereon, 'within the scope of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(b).'" Poole v. Walmart, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-726-D, 2023 WL 4207464, at *4 (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2023). "Such a request must set forth the property to be inspected and specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts." Id. (cleaned up). "Rule 34 incorporates the general discovery standard established in Rule 26, which dictates that a party cannot obtain discovery where the information sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or where the burden or expense of the proposed [inspection] outweighs its likely benefit." Id. (cleaned up). And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure "37(a)(3)(B)(iv) permits a party to seek an order compelling the inspection when the opposing party fails to respond to a request to inspect the relevant property." Id. As an initial matter, Rule 34(a) requires that the requesting party serve on the other party the request to inspect, and Rule 34(b) provides that "[t]he party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served," although "[a] shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Plaintiffs filed their motion on an emergency basis, asking "the court to inspect and photograph the premises of [Defendant] Raytheon Technologies Corp." and asserting that "[t]ime is of the essence because Raytheon is removing property from the facility and will soon shut it down." Dkt. No. 39 at 1. But Raytheon responds that it "is not removing machines from the Facility until the end of the year" and that "Plaintiffs' request for emergency relief is baseless." Dkt. No. 48 at 1.Setting timing aside, this Court has explained that, "[b]efore compelling an inspection of the responding party's property, the degree to which the proposed inspection will assist the moving party and its search for truth must be weighed against the hardships and hazards created by the inspection." Dittmar v. Kroger Texas, L.P., No. 3:14-CV-3501-G-BN, 2015 WL 11019135, at *4 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2015) (cleaned up). And Raytheon, as the resisting party, "bears the burden of establishing, with specificity, how the discovery request is not relevant, overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive." Poole, 2023 WL 4207464, at *5.After hearing oral argument and carefully reviewing the parties' briefing, the Court finds that Raytheon has met that burden and that Plaintiffs' requested inspection is not sufficiently necessary to Plaintiffs' claims in this employment discrimination case to justify the intrusion that it would involve.Plaintiffs justify their request -- which as served also entails videotaping the premises, see Dkt. No. 40 at 10 of 10 -- by asserting that "[s]ome of the Plaintiffs were assigned to a machine but then had to act as a lead over other machines and not compensated for the additional lead responsibilities"; "some of the Plaintiffs were assigned to a particular machine and yet required to work on other machines and perform extra work that others were not required to work"; "at least one Plaintiff was required to work on multiple machines when non-Black employees only had to learn one or a minimal number of machines"; "Corey Polite was assigned to two different paint rooms, a dry and a wet room"; and "Gerry Lewis, we understand, had an office space different or less than his non-Black counterpart." Dkt. No. 39 at 1-2. And Plaintiffs also request to inspect the two restrooms at issue in this case: the restroom where the noose was hanging and the restroom with the racist literature," asserting that "[e]ach Plaintiff's workspace is relevant as a general matter and their workspaces compared to others and that "[t]he general places where the discrimination occurred is also relevant, including the bathrooms." Id. at 2.Raytheon responds that most of these allegations are not included in Plaintiffs' live complaint. But, even if they were, Raytheon reports that it has offered "to work with Plaintiffs' counsel to identify the workstations/machines and the two restrooms they believe are relevant, take photographs of those locations, and share them with Plaintiffs' counsel -- subject to appropriate security safeguards." Dkt. No. 48 at 2. And Raytheon has persuasively explained that the requested inspection "is not the least intrusive or disruptive means to obtain the information Plaintiffs seek and will cause substantial disruption to Raytheon's business operations" and that "allowing Plaintiffs and their counsel to photograph and videotape Raytheon operations and equipment within the Facility -- without appropriate safeguards to which Plaintiffs have not yet agreed -- poses a substantial threat to U.S. national security interests." Id.After balancing the degree to which permitting the requested inspection would assist Plaintiffs in their employment discrimination case against the hardships and hazards created by the inspection, the Court determines that the photographs that Plaintiffs seek can be obtained from another source that is less burdensome and that the burden of the proposed inspection outweighs its likely benefit. And the Court further determines that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), the parties will bear their own expenses, including attorneys' fees, in connection with this motion.(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 11/9/2023.)
|
|
Filing 49
ELECTRONIC ORDER:The Court grants the #41 request for an informal discovery conference, and, after conducting the requested informal discovery conference, see Dkt. No. 41, the Court will separately enter a modified version of the parties' Joint Protective Order, see Dkt. No. 41-1, based on the following rulings on the parties' points of disagreement.The Court determines that Defendant Raytheon Technologies Corp.'s proposed language to direct the parties to confer about the need and parameters of any privilege log for classified information should documents containing that information be responsive in discovery offers a prudent approach and will not unduly burden the parties, counsel, or the Court. As Raytheon argues, documents containing classified information could make it difficult to include the usual required information in a log.The Court determines that there is no need for the protective order to include a designation for Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Information at this time. Should that change, the parties should confer and then file an appropriate motion with the Court.Courts in this district enter protective orders that place the burden on a designating party to move to maintain a confidential designation and order that place the burden on the receiving party to move to challenge another party's designation. See, e.g., Owens v. Circassia Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 3:19-cv-2231-M, Dkt. No. 63 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2020). In this case, the Court believes it appropriate to place the burden on the designating party in the provisions in paragraph.Finally, as the Court discussed with counsel during the conference, the Court will include Raytheon's proposed language in paragraph 16 with modifications to provide a time limit for Raytheon to move on any subpoena.(Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 11/9/2023.)
|
|
Filing 48
RESPONSE filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp re: #39 MOTION Motion to Inspect Premises (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 47
Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Certificate of Good Standing (Filing fee $100; Receipt number ATXNDC-14160392) filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Humphrey, Elizabeth)
|
|
Filing 46
ELECTRONIC ORDER: It has come to the Court's attention that Defendant's counsel Elizabeth Humphrey is not admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, Elizabeth Humphrey must either become admitted to practice in this District (see Local Rule 83.7) or move the Court to be admitted Pro Hac Vice (see Local Rule 83.9(b)). (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 11/6/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 45
ELECTRONIC ORDER:The Court will, in a combined proceeding by videoconference (over Zoom), (1) hear oral argument on #39 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Inspect Premises and (2) conduct the requested informal discovery conference, see Dkt. No. 41, on Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. Central Time before Magistrate Judge David L. Horan. The Court will separately circulate the Zoom log-in information. Counsel need not -- and should not -- prepare new oral presentations or PowerPoints or the like. Rather, counsel should be prepared to answer the Court's questions on these pending matters and update the Court regarding any developments that may bear on any of the pending and referred matters and that have occurred since the time that briefing closed. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 11/3/2023.)
|
|
Filing 44
ORDER Referring #41 Motion to Request an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court and #39 Motion to Inspect Premises to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan. (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 11/2/2023) (sxf)
|
|
Filing 43
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #42 Motion to Expedite Emergency Motion to Inspect. Response due by 11/8/2023. (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 11/2/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 42
Unopposed MOTION to Expedite Motion to Inspect filed by Ollie Dailey, Antonio James, Gerry Lewis, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 41
MOTION to Request an Informal Discovery Conference with the Court filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A) (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 40
Appendix in Support filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart re #39 MOTION Motion to Inspect Premises (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 39
MOTION Motion to Inspect Premises filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 38
REPLY filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp re: #34 Partial MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 37
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart re #36 Response/Objection, (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 36
RESPONSE filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart re: #34 Partial MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 35
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp re #34 Partial MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 34
Partial MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Shardonofsky, Esteban) Modified text on 8/2/2023 (axm).
|
|
Filing 33
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #30 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Defendant Raytheon Technologies Corp. to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint is July 31, 2023. (Ordered by Senior District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 7/5/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 32
REPLY filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp re: #30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 31
RESPONSE filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart re: #30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 30
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 29
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Raytheon Technologies Corp filed by Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Gerry Lewis, Marian Payne, Latoya Stuart, Gary Roundtree, Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Sylvia Matthews, Corey Polite, Antonio James, Billy Kelly. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) Gary Roundtree Report) (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 28
ELECTRONIC Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn: On June 2, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint #17 . For the reasons stated on the record, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file an amended pleading by June 23, 2023. As stated on the record, discovery is STAYED and may commence after the amended pleading is filed. Appearances: Plaintiffs - Brian Sanford, Elizabeth Sanford; Defendant - Steve Shardonofsky. (Court Reporter: Debbie Kriegshauser). Time in Court - 0:24. (chmb)
|
|
Filing 27
ELECTRONIC Notice of Hearing: The Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss #17 is RESET for 6/2/2023 at 10:00 AM CST before Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. The Hearing shall proceed via Zoom. The Zoom link will be sent to counsel when available. (chmb)
|
|
Filing 26
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL of Nyezi-Abasi Edet by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 25
ORDER: Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. #17 ) and the Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. #23 ), both filed by Defendant Raytheon Technologies Corp. The Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED. Oral argument is SET for 6/1/2023 at 10:00 a.m. CST. Counsel should convene in Courtroom 1570, Earle Cabell Federal Building, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, Texas, and be prepared to argue the Motion to Dismiss. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 5/9/2023) (ndt)
|
|
Filing 24
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp re #23 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (Opposed) (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 23
MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (Opposed) filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 22
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart. (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 21
REPLY filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp re: #17 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 20
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart re #19 Response/Objection, to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 19
RESPONSE filed by Ollie Dailey, Heather Davis, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Antonio James, Billy Kelly, Gerry Lewis, Sylvia Matthews, Marian Payne, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree, Latoya Stuart re: #17 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 18
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp re #17 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 17
MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 16
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #15 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond. The deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is 3/16/2023. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 2/23/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 15
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 14
SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for three-week docket beginning 2/10/2025 09:00 AM before Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. Joinder of Parties due by 5/1/2023. Amended Pleadings due by 5/1/2023. Motions due by 8/28/2024. Discovery due by 10/1/2024. Settlement Status Report due by 5/1/2023. Pretrial Order due by 1/21/2025. Pretrial Materials due by 1/21/2025. Pretrial Conference set for 2/7/2025 09:00 AM before Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 2/13/2023) (oyh)
|
|
Filing 13
Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan Under Rule 26(f) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Raytheon Technologies Corp. (Shardonofsky, Esteban) Modified docket text on 2/13/2023 (oyh).
|
|
Filing 12
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Raytheon Technologies Corp filed by Gerry Lewis, Ollie Dailey, Gary Roundtree, Antonio James, Corey Polite, Heather Davis, Marian Payne, Nyezi-Abisi Edet, Latoya Stuart, Billy Kelly, Sylvia Matthews. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Sanford, Brian)
|
|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #10 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Raymond C. Baldwin. Important Reminder: Unless excused for cause, an attorney who is not an ECF user must register within 14 days of the date the attorney appears in a case pursuant to LR 5.1(f) and LCrR 49.2(g). (Ordered by Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 1/30/2023) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 10
Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice with Certificate of Good Standing (Filing fee $100; Receipt number ATXNDC-13468493) filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)Attorney Raymond C Baldwin added to party Raytheon Technologies Corp(pty:dft) (Baldwin, Raymond)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER REQUIRING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND REPORT FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER: Proposed Scheduling Order due by 2/10/2023. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 1/20/2023) (oyh)
|
|
Filing 8
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Raytheon Technologies Corp. (Clerk QC note: Affiliate entry indicated). (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 7
ANSWER to #1 Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Shardonofsky, Esteban) Modified text on 1/20/2023 (mms).
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting #5 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. The deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is 1/19/2023. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 12/28/2022) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 5
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by Raytheon Technologies Corp (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)Attorney Esteban Shardonofsky added to party Raytheon Technologies Corp(pty:dft) (Shardonofsky, Esteban)
|
|
Filing 4
Summons Issued as to Raytheon Technologies Corp. (ndt)
|
|
Filing 3
New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt)
|
|
Filing 2
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Ollie Dailey, Antonio James, Gerry Lewis, Corey Polite, Gary Roundtree. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (for image please see doc #1 -2) (ndt)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Gary Roundtree, Ollie Dailey, Gerry Lewis, Corey Polite, Antonio James. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number ATXNDC-13336507) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 Certificate of Interested Parties) (Sanford, Brian)
|
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 Texas Northern 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.
