Lee v. Starbucks et al
| Deniece Lee |
| Starbucks and Smith's Food & Drug Centers a foreign corporation doing business as Smith's Marketplace |
| 1:2023cv00069 |
| June 2, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Howard C Nielson |
| Daphne A Oberg |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal- Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
DOCKET TEXT ORDER: The parties are ordered to comply with paragraph 3 of the #6 Order to Propose Schedule within fourteen days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 7/26/2023. No attached document.(med)
|
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT: Consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge under DUCivR 72-4 has not been obtained. Case randomly assigned to Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr and Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg is automatically referred under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg no longer assigned as the presiding judge to the case. (alf) |
| Filing 11 RECEIVED Consent/Reassignment Form from Plaintiff Deniece Lee. (alf) |
| Filing 10 RECEIVED Consent/Reassignment Form from Defendants Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Starbucks. (alf) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE - This case is assigned to a magistrate judge. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, you are hereby notified that a magistrate judge for the District of Utah may conduct any or all proceedings in this case, including a jury or bench trial and entry of a final judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by the magistrate judge is permitted only if all parties voluntarily sign and return the form. To consent, return the Consent Form to the clerk's office within 21 days via email at consents@utd.uscourts.gov or mail at the address on the form and place Attention: Consent Clerk on the envelope. Please do not e-file the Consent Form in the case. Notice e-mailed or mailed to Plaintiff Deniece Lee, Defendants Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Starbucks. Form due by 7/11/2023. (alf) |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal #2 ) Consent to Removal filed by Starbucks. (Edwards, Stephen) |
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint filed by Starbucks. Attorney Stephen F. Edwards added to party Starbucks(pty:dft)(Edwards, Stephen) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO PROPOSE SCHEDULE - See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 6/5/2023. (alf)
|
| Filing 5 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Plaintiff Deniece Lee. (Carlson, Mark) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal #2 ) filed by Smith's Food & Drug Centers. (Edwards, Stephen) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ADR, e-mailed or mailed to Plaintiff Deniece Lee, Defendant Smith's Food & Drug Centers. (ks) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 2nd District Court Davis County, case number 230700517, (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AUTDC-4697520) filed by Smith's Food & Drug Centers. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Edwards, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 Case has been indexed and assigned to Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg. Defendant Smith's Food & Drug Centers is directed to E-File the Notice of Removal and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 402. by the end of the business day.NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. (ks) |
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 Utah 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.
