Rutherford v. CGI Federal Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Lamar Rutherford
Defendant: CGI Federal Inc. and ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC
Case Number: 1:2023cv00985
Filed: July 26, 2023
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Presiding Judge: Ivan D Davis
Referring Judge: Patricia Tolliver Giles
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Disability Act)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 12, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER granting #12 Motion for Pro hac vice Appointed James Joseph Murphy for ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC. Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 9/12/2023. (swil)
September 12, 2023 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis:Settlement Conference via ZoomGov held on 9/12/2023. All parties were in attendance. The conference lasted 5 hours and 15 minutes. Settlement discussions are continued. (lgue, )
September 11, 2023 Filing 12 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by James Joseph Murphy and Certification of Local Counsel Scott A. Siegner Filing fee $ 75, receipt number AVAEDC-9118858. by ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC. (Siegner, Scott)
August 29, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDERED that the Motion #10 is GRANTED. Defendant ASRC shall have until September 29, 2023 to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis on 08/29/2023. (dvanm)
August 28, 2023 Filing 10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #2 Amended Complaint by ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Siegner, Scott)
August 28, 2023 Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Andrew Siegner on behalf of ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC (Siegner, Scott)
August 23, 2023 Settlement Conference set for 9/12/2023 at 09:30 AM in Alexandria Remote before Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis. (lgue, )
August 16, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER granting #6 Motion for Pro hac vice Appointed Ivey Best for Lamar Rutherford. Signed by District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles on 8/16/2023. (swil)
August 15, 2023 Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lamar Rutherford ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC served on 8/10/2023, answer due 8/31/2023 (Teachout, Valerie)
August 15, 2023 Filing 6 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Ivey E. Best and Certification of Local Counsel Valerie A. Teachout Filing fee $ 75, receipt number AVAEDC-9078275. by Lamar Rutherford. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Proposed Order Application/Proposed Order)(Teachout, Valerie)
August 3, 2023 Clerk's Office Error - Notice should not have been sent. Notice of Correction re #5 Waiver of Service Executed. The filing user has been notified that because a waiver was used instead of the issued summons, the unexecuted summons must be filed with the court as unexecuted. (dvanm) Modified on 8/3/2023 (dvanm, ).
August 2, 2023 Filing 5 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Lamar Rutherford. CGI Federal Inc. waiver sent on 8/2/2023, answer due 10/2/2023. (Teachout, Valerie)
August 2, 2023 Filing 4 Summons Issued as to ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC. NOTICE TO ATTORNEY: Please remove the headers and print two duplexed copies of the electronically issued summons for each Defendant. Please serve one copy of the summons and a copy of the Complaint upon each Defendant. Please ensure that your process server returns the service copy (executed or unexecuted) to your attention and electronically file it using the filing events, Summons Returned Executed or Summons Returned Unexecuted. (Attachments: #1 Notice)(dvanm) Modified to correct party to whom summons was issued on 8/3/2023 (dvanm).
August 1, 2023 Filing 3 Proposed Summons ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC by Lamar Rutherford. (Teachout, Valerie)
August 1, 2023 Filing 2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC, CGI Federal Inc., filed by Lamar Rutherford. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Teachout, Valerie)
July 26, 2023 Initial Case Assignment to District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis. (dvanm)
July 26, 2023 Filing 1 Complaint ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AVAEDC-9046518.), filed by Lamar Rutherford. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Teachout, Valerie)

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: Rutherford v. CGI Federal Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lamar Rutherford
Represented By: Ivey Best
Represented By: Valerie Ann Teachout
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: CGI Federal Inc.
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: ASRC Federal Holding Company, LLC
Represented By: Scott Andrew Siegner
Represented By: James Joseph Murphy
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?