Prospero v. AT&T Corp.
| Martha Prospero |
| AT&T Corp. |
| 3:2020cv00274 |
| November 2, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| David C Guaderrama |
| Miguel A Torres |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 3, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 STATUS REPORT by AT&T Corp.. (Hernandez, Stacey) |
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING #6 Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order Signed by Judge Miguel A. Torres. (mc4) Modified on 12/23/2020 (mc4).
|
|
Filing 7
SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 3/3/2022 02:00 PM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Jury Selection set for 3/14/2022 09:00AM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Jury Trial set for 3/14/2022 09:00 AM before Judge David C Guaderrama, Amended Pleadings due by 3/21/2021, Discovery due by 10/1/2021, Joinder of Parties due by 3/21/2021, Dispositive Motions due by 11/1/2021,. Signed by Judge Miguel A. Torres. (mc4) Modified on 12/23/2020 (mc4).
|
| Filing 6 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by AT&T Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Exhibit A Proposed Protective Order). Motions referred to Judge Miguel A. Torres. (Hernandez, Stacey) |
| Filing 5 ADR Report Filed - by AT&T Corp.(Hernandez, Stacey) |
| Filing 4 Proposed Scheduling Order by AT&T Corp.. (Hernandez, Stacey) |
| Filing 3 Rule 26(f) Discovery Report/Case Management Plan by AT&T Corp.. (Hernandez, Stacey) |
| CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres. (jm) |
| Case reassigned to Judge David C Guaderrama pursuant to Standing Order 001. Judge Miguel A. Torres no longer assigned to the case. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (jm) |
| Filing 2 Notice of right to consent to disposition of a civil case by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Consent to Trial by Magistrate due by 12/3/2020,. Signed by Judge Miguel A. Torres. (jg1) |
| Case assigned to Judge Miguel A. Torres. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (jg1) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by AT&T Corp. (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0542-14138573), filed by AT&T Corp..(Hernandez, Stacey) |
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 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: Prospero v. AT&T Corp. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Martha Prospero | |
| Represented By: | Enrique Chavez, Jr. |
| 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: AT&T Corp. | |
| Represented By: | Stacey Cho Hernandez |
| Represented By: | Ruben Gandia |
| Represented By: | Courtney Barksdale Perez |
| 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.
