Ortiz v. Walmart Inc.
| Elizabeth Ortiz |
| Walmart Inc. |
| 2:2018cv00461 |
| August 25, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Arenda L Wright Allen |
| Douglas E Miller |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 791 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 19, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
RULE 26(f) PRETRIAL ORDER: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference set for 11/13/2018 at 10:30 AM at the courthouse in Norfolk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 10/18/18 and filed on 10/19/18. (lhow)
|
| Refer for 16(b) (clou ) |
| Filing 9 Financial Interest Disclosure Statement (Local Rule 7.1) by Walmart Inc.. (Ingle, Gilda) |
| Filing 8 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Walmart Inc..(Ingle, Gilda) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #6 , the Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Kevin M. Kraham as certified by local counsel G. Bethany Ingle for Walmart Inc.. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 10/02/2018. (Allen, Arenda)
|
| Filing 6 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Kevin M. Kraham and Certification of Local Counsel G. Bethany Ingle Filing fee $ 75, receipt number 0422-6278381. by Walmart Inc.. (Ingle, Gilda) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER granting #4 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Complaint. Defendant's Answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Complaint must be filed by no later than October 4, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 9/19/2018. (clou )
|
| MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge: Douglas E. Miller. #4 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Complaint (clou ) |
| Filing 4 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Complaint by Walmart Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Ingle, Gilda) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Elizabeth Ortiz. Walmart Inc. served on 8/30/2018. (clou ) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to Walmart Inc. NOTICE TO ATTORNEY: Print out two electronically issued summons and one copy of the attachments for each defendant to be served with the complaint. (Attachments: #1 Civil Motions Procedures)(epri) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Walmart Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0422-6244922.), filed by Elizabeth Ortiz. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(epri) |
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
| Search for this case: Ortiz v. Walmart Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Walmart Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Gilda Bethany Ingle |
| Represented By: | Kevin Michael Kraham |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Elizabeth Ortiz | |
| Represented By: | Jeremiah Andrew Denton, IV |
| Represented By: | Jeremiah A. Denton, III |
| 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.
