Williams v. StubHub Holdings
Latriece Williams |
StubHub Holdings |
2:2024cv00476 |
July 1, 2024 |
US District Court for the District of Utah |
Tena Campbell |
Daphne A Oberg |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Employment) |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 15, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 9 Full Filing fee: $ 405.00 received, receipt number 7061 (sg) |
Filing 8 ORDER ADOPTING #7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS to deny #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has 30 days to pay the required filing fee. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 7/31/24 (alt) |
Filing 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Magistrate Judge recommends the district judge deny the Motion to Proceed IFP and allow Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on 7/16/24 (alt) |
Filing 6 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 Tena Campbell and Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg. Magistrate Judge is automatically referred under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg no longer assigned as the presiding judge to the case. (mh) |
Filing 5 RECEIVED Consent/Reassignment Form from Plaintiff Latriece Williams. (mh) |
Filing 4 NOTICE OF PRESIDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE ASSIGNMENT - This case is assigned to a magistrate judge. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, and DUCivR 72-4, 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 to the address on the form. Please do not efile the Consent Form in the case. Notice emailed or mailed to Plaintiff Latriece Williams. Form due by 7/22/2024. (mh) |
Filing 3 NOTICE of Email Filing and Notification Form by Latriece Williams. (mh) |
Filing 2 COMPLAINT against StubHub Holdings (Originally received by the court on 07/01/2024). (Fee Status: Pending IFP) filed by Latriece Williams. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet ) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg (sg) |
Filing 1 **SEALED DOCUMENT** MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Assigned to Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg for review, case file forwarded to Magistrate Judge. (Received by the court on: 07/01/2024) filed by Plaintiff Latriece Williams. (sg) |
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
Search for this case: Williams v. StubHub Holdings | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Latriece Williams | |
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: StubHub Holdings | |
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.