Aslani v. Kashima

Aslani v. Kashima

Plaintiff:	Maryam Aslani
Defendant:	Kathleen Kashima
Case Number:	1:2016cv01343
Filed:	October 26, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Alexandria Office
County:	Fairfax
Presiding Judge:	Theresa Carroll Buchanan
Presiding Judge:	Gerald Bruce Lee
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 754
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 25, 2017	Filing 32 ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court, plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. No. 7] is DENIED and plaintiffs counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record [Dkt. No. 25] is GRANTED. As for the plaintiffs objections to the Report and Recommendation ("Report"), for the reasons stated in open court, the Court finds that plaintiffs objections [Dkt. No. 17] are without merit and that the magistrate judge correctly found that defendant was not properly served, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and that venue in this district is improper. Accordingly, the Report [Dkt. No. 15] is AFFIRMED in all respects except that given the tragic allegations in plaintiff's complaint, rather than accept ing the recommendation that the complaint be dismissed, it is hereby ORDERED that this civil action be and is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, where plaintiff previously filed a related complaint. (see order for details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 1/25/17. (yguy)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 25, 2017

Filing 32 ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court, plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. No. 7] is DENIED and plaintiffs counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record [Dkt. No. 25] is GRANTED. As for the plaintiffs objections to the Report and Recommendation ("Report"), for the reasons stated in open court, the Court finds that plaintiffs objections [Dkt. No. 17] are without merit and that the magistrate judge correctly found that defendant was not properly served, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and that venue in this district is improper. Accordingly, the Report [Dkt. No. 15] is AFFIRMED in all respects except that given the tragic allegations in plaintiff's complaint, rather than accept ing the recommendation that the complaint be dismissed, it is hereby ORDERED that this civil action be and is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, where plaintiff previously filed a related complaint. (see order for details). Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 1/25/17. (yguy)

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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Aslani v. Kashima
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Maryam Aslani
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: Kathleen Kashima
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.

Why Is My Information Online?