Cenetra Johnson v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation
Cenetra Johnson |
Raytheon Company and Raytheon Technologies Corporation |
1:2022cv01098 |
September 26, 2022 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
John F Anderson |
Patricia Tolliver Giles |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1446 Notice of Removal |
Defendant |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 15 So Ordered in re #14 JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal without Prejudice filed by Cenetra Johnson. Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 1/24/2023. (nlop) |
Filing 14 JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal without Prejudice by Cenetra Johnson. (Weiner, Blake) Modified docket text to correct filing event on 1/24/2023 (nlop). Modified docket text to correct filing event on 2/1/2023 (nlop). |
Filing 13 Order Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order - Upon consideration of the representations made in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report and Discovery Plan ("Joint Discovery Plan") (Docket no. 12), and taking note of the Scheduling Order entered in this case (Docket no. 11), the court makes the following rulings: The Joint Discovery Plan is approved and shall control discovery to the extent of its application unless further modified by the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 01/13/2023. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (wgar) |
Filing 12 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Cenetra Johnson. (Weiner, Blake) |
Filing 11 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 1/18/2023 at 11:00 AM in Alexandria Courtroom 501 before Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/19/2023 at 10:00 AM in Alexandria Telephonically before District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles. Discovery due by 4/14/2023. Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 12/16/22. (Attachments: #1 Pretrial Notice, #2 Magistrate Judge Consent Form)(pmil, ) |
Filing 10 ORDER granting #8 Motion for Pro hac vice Appointed Bruce Griggs for Raytheon Company. Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 11/15/2022. (nneb) |
Filing 9 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint by Raytheon Company.(Humber, Christopher) |
Filing 8 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Bruce Griggs and Certification of Local Counsel Christopher E. Humber Filing fee $ 75, receipt number AVAEDC-8659454. by Raytheon Company. (Humber, Christopher) |
Filing 7 ORDER granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. ORDERED that Defendant Raytheon shall have up to and including November 14, 2022, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 11/08/2022. (wgar, ) |
Filing 6 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #5 Amended Complaint by Raytheon Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Humber, Christopher) |
Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Cenetra Johnson.(Weiner, Blake) |
Filing 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Raytheon Company. (Humber, Christopher) |
Filing 3 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint by Raytheon Company.(Humber, Christopher) |
Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Blake Andrew Weiner on behalf of Cenetra Johnson (Weiner, Blake) |
Initial Case Assignment to District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles and Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson. (nlop) |
Filing 1 Notice of Removal ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AVAEDC-8586888.), filed by Raytheon Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Humber, Christopher) |
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 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.