Bargainer v. Benchmark VA LLC Subsurface Utility Services
| Christopher Bargainer |
| Benchmark VA LLC Subsurface Utility Services |
| 3:2024cv00181 |
| March 12, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| John A Gibney |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Benchmark VA LLC Subsurface Utility Services. NOTICE TO ATTORNEY: Please remove the headers and print two duplexed copies of the electronically issued summons for the Defendant. Please serve one copy of the summons and a copy of the Complaint upon the 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. (sbea) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons re #1 Complaint, by Christopher Bargainer. (Antell, Zev) |
| Filing 1 Complaint Original Collective Action Complaint ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AVAEDC-9410155.), filed by Christopher Bargainer. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex. 1 Consent of Christopher Bargainer, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Antell, Zev) |
| Initial Case Assignment to District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. (sbea) |
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.
