Cervantez v. Lochridge-Priest, Inc.
| Charles Cervantez |
| Lochridge-Priest, Inc. |
| 6:2018cv00309 |
| October 17, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Alan D Albright |
| Jeffrey C Manske |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 14, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alan D Albright: Telephone Conference held on 12/14/2018. Parties discussed and determined 1/21/2020 would be a good agreed jury trial date. Parties anticipatetrial lasting 3 - 4 days. Court explained normal trial practices and how he prefers to handle cases. (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Kristie Davis.)(lad) |
| Filing 10 Proposed Scheduling Order by Lochridge-Priest, Inc.. (Funk, Robyn) |
Filing 9
ORDER RESETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Status Conference reset for 12/14/2018 10:30 AM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. Conference set for 12/13/2018 10:30 AM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robyn M. Funk on behalf of Lochridge-Priest, Inc. (Funk, Robyn) |
| Filing 6 Certificate of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statement by Lochridge-Priest, Inc.. (Eisenstat, Gary) |
| Filing 5 Defendant's Original ANSWER to #1 Complaint . Attorney Gary D. Eisenstat added to party Lochridge-Priest, Inc.(pty:dft) by Lochridge-Priest, Inc..(Eisenstat, Gary) |
| CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (tb) |
| Case assigned to Judge Alan D Albright. 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. (tb) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Lochridge-Priest, Inc.. (lad) |
| Filing 3 Certificate of Interested Parties by Charles Cervantez. (Lee, Robert) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Charles Cervantez. (Lee, Robert) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0542-11349980), filed by Charles Cervantez. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lee, Robert) |
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: Cervantez v. Lochridge-Priest, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Lochridge-Priest, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Robyn M. Funk |
| Represented By: | Gary D. Eisenstat |
| 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: Charles Cervantez | |
| Represented By: | Robert Garland Lee |
| Represented By: | Megan Dixon |
| Represented By: | Meagan Leigh Whitley |
| 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.
