Rucker v. Indorama Ventures Xylenes & Pta, LLC
Court Docket Sheet

Northern District of Alabama

5:2017-cv-02144 (alnd)

COMPLAINT against Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC filed by Kuryakin C. Rucker.(SPT)

FILED 2017 Dec - 21 AM 08: 54U.S. DISTRICT. COURT N. D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION KURYAKIN C. RUCKER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No .: Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC, Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Kuryakin C. Rucker, states the following in support of this Complaint against Defendant, Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC ("Indorama"); INTRODUCTION 1. Indorama discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff based on his race in violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42U.S. C. & 1981 ("S 1981) . This action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys ' fees, and costs. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, an African - American male, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Madison County, Alabama. 3. Indorama is a foreign limited liability company incorporated in the State of Delaware. Indorama is authorized to conduct business in the State of Alabama. Indorama conducted business in its own name in the Northern District of Alabama at all times relevant to Page 1 of 9 the statutory violations made the basis of this suit and otherwise meets the definitional requirements of 42U.S. C. & 2000e. Indorama's address is 1301 Finley Island Road, Decatur, Alabama 35601. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 3 as if fully set out herein. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to $ 1981 as the claims pled infra involve a question of federal law. 6. This Court maintains subject matter jurisdiction under 28U.S. C. 88 2201 and 2202. 00 N O 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Indorama. 8. Venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 27U.S. C. & 1391 (a) (2), with respect to Indorama, as this is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events which have given rise to the claims pled infra occurred. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff restates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 8 as if fully set out herein. 10. In May, 2015, BP P. L. C. ("BP ""), through its local Human Resources Manager, Darleen Pope ("Pope"), hired Plaintiff to work as a " Human Resources Advisor " at its chemical plant in Decatur, Limestone County, Alabama (the " Decatur Plant") . 11. Plaintiff reported to Pope, who is an African American female. 12. The Decatur Plant manufactured purified terephathalic acid ("PTA"), which was used by Indorama's subsidiary, AlphaPET, Inc. ("AlphaPET"), to make plastic bottles, sheets, and other materials. Page 2 of 9 13. Plaintiff, as a Human Resources Advisor, was the primary day - to - day human resource asset for the Decatur Plant. 14. Plaintiff partnered with operational staff to implement BP's human resource 2 IC policies, namely, coaching and counseling on workplace environment, employee discipline, policy interpretation, employee reward and recognition, employee relations, employee development, recruiting, employee performance management, compensation, and diversity. 15. In September, 2015, Pope suffered a medical emergency and left BP; thus, BP named Plaintiff as the " Acting Human Resources Manager. " ia 16. BP awarded Plaintiff a written commendation and cash bonus for his service as Acting Human Resources Manager before the transition of the Decatur Plant to new ownership. 17. After the sale of the Decatur Plant was announced, Indorama partnered with BP to facilitate the transition and retained BP's human resources staff. 18. Therefore, BP installed an employee from a different BP chemical plant, Dave Gibbs ("Gibbs"), who would not be transitioning to Indorama and could look out for BP's interests during the transition, to serve as BP'S Acting Human Resources Manager until sale of the Decatur Plant closed and ownership transferred to Indorama. 19. Gibbs served as BP's Acting Human Resources Manager until Indorama closed on the purchase of the Decatur Plant in April, 2016, at which time he was transferred to another BP facility. 20. Indorama tasked Plaintiff to serve as the " Implementation Lead " for the transition and implementation of its human resource functions. Page 3 of 9 21. Indorama assigned Tammy Harrison ("Harrison"), its nationwide " Human Resources Manager " for mergers and acquisitions, to oversee the Decatur Plant transition into the Indorama portfolio of companies, 22. Harrison is a Caucasian female. 23. As part of the transition, Indorama needed to install its own Human Resources Manager as Harrison primarily worked at another Indorama plant. 24. In January, 2016, at the chemical plant, Plaintiff told Harrison that he was interested in the Indorama Human Resources Manager position and requested that he be considered for the same, 25. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff emailed Harrison again expressing his interest in the Indorama Human Resources Manager position at the chemical plant and requested that he be (tar LELE JUEV considered for the same. 26. Harrison did not respond to Plaintiff's March 2, 2016, email, and no discussion was ever had with Plaintiff from anyone in the plant leadership regarding the Indorama Human Resources Manager position. 27. Plaintiff was never afforded an opportunity to interview for the Indorama Human YI Resources Manager position at the chemical plant. 28. After purchasing the Decatur Plant, and after knowing Plaintiff was interested in the position, Indorama failed to post an opening for its Human Resources Manager position for candidates, like Plaintiff, to apply. 29. In May, 2016, Indorama promoted an internal engineer, Rebecca Shelton ("Shelton"), who is a Caucasian female, to serve as its Human Resources Manager position at the Decatur chemical plant. Page 4 of 9 30. From May, 2016, through July, 2017, Shelton was Plaintiff's direct supervisor. 31. As the Human Resources Manager, Shelton reported to Russell Wilson ("Wilson"), the chemical plant " Site Manager, " and Srinivasan Prabhushankar ("Shankar"), Indorama's Senior Vice President of North American Operations. 32. Wilson is a Caucasian male. 33. Shankar, Wilson, Harrison, and Shelton knew Plaintiff was an African American male. 34. Shelton's salary as the Human Resources Manager was approximately One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($ 160, 000. 00) plus health benefits and other perquisites. 35. Plaintiff earned approximately Ninety - Two Thousand Dollars ($ 92, 000) as a Human Resource Advisor. 36. Before Indorama purchased the chemical plant, Shelton worked as BP's " Director of Safety & Operational Risk, " with a salary of approximately One Hundred and Fifty - Five Thousand Dollars ($ 155, 000. 00) plus health benefits and perquisites. The position did not exist in Indorama. 37. Plaintiff was more qualified than Shelton to serve as the Human Resources Manager at the Decatur Plant. 38. Shelton holds a Master of Business Administration with a concentration in Human Resources degree, but she never worked in the human resource field. 39. Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor in employment and labor and a Master of Arts in industrial relations, and he has eleven years of experience in the human resource field. Page 5 of 9 40. Indorama failed to follow its internal job posting policies in filling the Human Resources Manager position; however, it posted other positions during this time, namely, " Financial Analyst " and " Procurement Manager. " 41. In January, 2017, Shelton rated Plaintiff's performance at the lowest level — " below expectations " for the period of April, 2016, through December, 2016, 42. Plaintiff was Indorama's only salaried employee at the Decatur Plant rated " below expectations. " 43. Shelton claimed that missed deadlines for producing new workplace policies led to Plaintiff's low rating, however, she did not similarly rate two Caucasian, female employees for the same concerns. 44. Plaintiff denies that he missed any deadlines in violation of Indorama policies and procedures. 45. After the low rating, Plaintiff was never placed on a performance improvement Orrian plan " ("PIP "") in violation of Indorama's policies and procedures. 46. Shelton's rating reduced Plaintiff's yearly bonus from Ten Thousand Dollars ($ 10, 000. 00) to Five Thousand Dollars ($ 5, 000. 00) . 47. In August, 2016, Plaintiff was denied tuition for his doctorate level college study; however, other Caucasian employees were granted tuition assistance at that time. 48. Plaintiff resigned his position with Indorama on July 17, 2017, to take a higher paying job to mitigate his damages. 49. Plaintiff was passed over for the permanent position of Indorama's Human Resources Manager for a less qualified candidate, denied proper performance reviews, and denied tuition assistance due to the color of his skin. Page 6 of 9 CAUSES OF ACTION Count - 42U.S. C. & 1981 Discrimination 50. Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49. 51. Indorama's conduct constituted disparate treatment and unlawful racial discrimination against Plaintiff because of his race in violation of g 42U.S. C. & 1981. 52. Indorama's actions of discrimination against Plaintiff were intentional, performed with malice and / or with reckless disregard to Plaintiff's federally protected civil rights. 53. As a direct and proximate result of Indorama's violations of Plaintiff's federally protected civil rights, Plaintiff suffered and incurred substantial damages. These damages include lost wages, lost employee benefits, lost raises, diminished earnings capacity, lost career and business opportunities, litigation expenses including attorney fees, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience, mental and emotional anguish, and other compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by a jury and the Court. 54. Plaintiff further seeks punitive damages against Indorama for its willful and intentional violation of the law in such an amount which will punish it and deter others. 55. Indorama engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of his race with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff's rights under 42U.S. C. & 1981. 56. Indorama's conduct constituted unlawful discrimination against Plaintiff in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment on the basis of his race in violation of 42U.S. C. & 1981. 57. Plaintiff has and will continue in the future to suffer pecuniary losses as a direct result of Indorama's violation of 42U.S. C. & 1981. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (A) assume jurisdiction over this action; Page 7 of 9 (B) declare that the acts and omissions described herein violated Plaintiff's federally protected civil rights; (C) enjoin Indorama from engaging in such conduct; award Plaintiff back pay and benefits from the date Shelton was hired as the Human Resources Manager at the chemical plant up to any action to reinstate his employment; (E) award Plaintiff compensatory damages against Indorama that will fully compensate him for mental distress, anguish, pain, suffering, and concern that he has suffered as direct and proximate result of the statutory and common law violations of Indorama as set out herein; (F) enter a judgment against Indorama for such liquidated and punitive damages sufficient to punish Indorama for its statutory and common law violations perpetrated upon Plaintiff, in an amount that will serve as a deterrent to Indorama and other from engaging in similar conduct in the future; (G) award Plaintiff his costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees; (H) enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for appropriate declaratory relief regarding the unlawful acts and practices of Defendants; (1) enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Indorama for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted this the 20th day of December, 2017. Rebekah Keith McKinney (ASB - 3137 - T64J) Philip M. DeFatta (ASB - 9307 - R74F) WATSON MCKINNEY, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 200 Clinton Ave. W. Suite 110 Page 8 of 9 Huntsville, Alabama 35801 (256) 536 - 7423 phone (256) 536 - 2689 fax mckinney @ watsonmckinney. com defattalawatsonmckinney. com PLEASE SERVE DEFENDANTS BY CERTIFIED MAIL AS FOLLOWS: Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA LLC c / o Corporation Service Company, Inc. 641 South Lawrence Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Page 9 of 9

ANSWER to {{1}} Complaint by Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC.

FILED 2018 Jan-16 PM 01:35 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION KURYAKIN C. RUCKER,)) PLAINTIFF,)) VS.) CIVIL ACTION NO.) 5:17-CV-02144-HNJ INDORAMA VENTURES XYLENES &) PTA, LLC,)) DEFENDANT.) ANSWER Defendant, Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC ("Defendant"), responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has any lawful basis to make the claims asserted in the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff is due any of the relief requested. PARTIES 2. Upon information and belief, admitted. 3. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Defendant re-alleges and incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-3 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 5. Defendant admits that this Court has jurisdiction over this action but denies that it violated the referenced statutes in any way. 6. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 7. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 8. Defendant admits that venue is proper and that Plaintiff was employed with Defendant in this District. Defendant denies that it discriminated and/or retaliated against Plaintiff and denies that it engaged in unlawful employment practices with regard to Plaintiff. III. STATEMENT OF THE [ALLEGED] FACTS 9. Defendant re-alleges and incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-8 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 10. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 11. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore, denied. 12. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 2 13. Except to admit that Plaintiff was a Human Resources Advisor, Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13. 14. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore, denied. 15. Except to admit that Pope had a medical emergency, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 15. 16. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore, denied. 17. Except to admit that Defendant retained human resources staff as part of the sale, Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17. 18. Except to admit that David Gibbs was Acting Human Resources Manager, Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18. 19. Upon information and belief, admitted. 20. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 21. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 22. Admitted. 23. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 3 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted. 26. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 27. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 28. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 29. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 30. Admitted. 31. Admitted. 32. Admitted. 33. Admitted. 34. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 35. Admitted. 36. Admitted. 37. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 4 38. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 39. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore, denied. 40. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 41. Admitted. 42. Admitted. 43. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 44. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore, denied. 45. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 46. Admitted that Plaintiff's bonus was reduced. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46. 47. Admitted. 48. Admitted that Plaintiff voluntarily resigned in July 2017. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 48. 5 49. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 of Plaintiff's Complaint. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Discrimination 50. Defendant re-alleges and incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 49 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 51. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 52. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 53. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 54. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff's Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. 55. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 56. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 57. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of Plaintiff's Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. 6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the section of the Complaint entitled "PRAYER FOR RELIEF," including subparts A – I thereunder, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. ADDITIONAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES To the extent not expressly admitted in this Answer, Defendant denies the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant further responds to Plaintiff's Complaint with the following additional and affirmative defenses: 1. Some or all of the claims asserted in the Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. There are no issues of material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3. For the avoidance of waiver, Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations and/or are otherwise untimely. 4. For the avoidance of waiver, to the extent that any alleged unlawful acts occurred more than 180 days prior to Plaintiff's filing of an administrative charge of discrimination, a civil action based on said acts is barred. 7 5. For avoidance of waiver, Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies or otherwise fulfill the statutory prerequisites to filing this suit. 6. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the employment "at-will" doctrine. 7. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to recite allegations sufficient to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. 8. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, at all relevant times, Defendant had anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies in effect and Plaintiff failed to avail himself of those policies and failed to bring his alleged complaints to the attention of Defendant. 9. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any unlawfully discriminatory behavior and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities and/or to avoid harm otherwise. 10. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant responded promptly and appropriately to any complaints of discrimination that were brought to its attention in accordance with its policies. 8 11. Defendant denies that race or any other impermissible factor played a role in any decision or act challenged by Plaintiff. In the alternative, in the event the Court or jury concludes that any alleged impermissible factor was a motivating factor in any of the challenged employment decisions (which Defendant expressly denies), Defendant affirmatively avers that the same decisions would have been made even absent consideration of such factor(s). 12. Defendant has at all times acted reasonably and in good faith. 13. Any actions taken by Defendant toward Plaintiff were for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons in good faith without regard to his race or any protected characteristic or activity. 14. Any alleged misconduct by any employee of Defendant that affected Plaintiff was done: without the authority, knowledge, approval or ratification of Defendant; in conflict with and in violation of Defendant's policies; solely for personal purposes not related to work for Defendant; and outside the course and scope of employment. 15. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any losses he has sustained or will sustain are due to his own failures and omissions and his own conduct or negligence and assumption of risk. 16. Plaintiff's claims and/or damages may be limited by the after-acquired evidence doctrine. 9 17. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of estoppel, ratification, acquiescence, consent, agreement, accord and satisfaction, release, payment, and/or waiver. 18. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. 19. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. 20. To the extent Plaintiff sat on his rights and accepted remuneration without complaining or providing any notice or indication to Defendant of any claim of any violation of law, his claims may be barred by the equitable doctrines of laches and/or estoppel. 21. To avoid waiver, Defendant preserves all affirmative defenses under 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g)(2)(B)(I)-(ii). 22. Without conceding that Defendant has the burden of proof on this issue, and expressly denying that Plaintiff suffered any actionable damages, Defendant avers that, through use of diligent efforts, Plaintiff could have mitigated his alleged loss of earnings and other damages, if any, and upon information and belief, he failed to do so. 23. The imposition of punitive damages would violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and analogous 10 provisions of Alabama's Constitution because (a) the standard for liability for punitive damages is inadequate, unduly vague and subjective, permitting random, arbitrary, capricious, excessive and/or disproportionate punishment that serves no legitimate governmental interest, and (b) there are no adequate standards or procedures for reviewing awards for punitive damages. 24. Plaintiff is precluded from any recovery because he has not suffered any damages or any legally recognizable injury and/or the damages he seeks are speculative and not recoverable as a matter of law. 25. The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support an award of either attorneys' fees or costs against Defendant. 26. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, insofar as Defendant's purported actions or omissions were not the proximate cause of any alleged injury, loss, and/or damage incurred by Plaintiff. 27. Any alleged damages suffered by Plaintiff were not caused by any action, conduct, behavior, or incidents for which Defendant is or could be liable. 28. To the extent that the Complaint seeks punitive damages, Plaintiff is not entitled to such since Defendants acted at all times towards Plaintiff in good faith, without malice, evil intent or reckless disregard for his rights, and made good faith efforts to comply with the law. 11 29. To the extent Plaintiff demands punitive damages, Defendant specifically incorporates by reference any and all standards or limitations regarding the determination and/or enforceability of punitive damage awards which arose in the decision of BMW of No. America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996) and its progeny. 30. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses insofar as Plaintiff's claims are clarified in the course of this proceeding or additional evidence is discovered. 31. At the time of filing this Answer, Defendant has neither commenced nor completed discovery in this cause and respectfully reserves the right to amend this answer based on discovery of additional information or affirmative defenses at a later date up to and including the time of trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows: 1. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, or alternatively that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant; 2. That Defendant be awarded costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses to the maximum extent allowed by law; and 3. That the Court grant Defendant such other relief as may be deemed just and proper. 12 Respectfully submitted by, /s/ John B. Holmes, III Mitesh Shah (ASB-3198-S77S) John B. Holmes, III (ASB-6523-O42H) Allen B. (Josh) Bennett (ASB-9020-L69B) Attorneys for Defendant Of counsel: MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. 1901 Sixth Avenue North 2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 Telephone: 205.254.1000 FAX: 205.254.1999 E-mail: mshah@maynardcooper.com E-mail: jholmes@maynardcooper.com E-mail: jbennett@maynardcooper.com 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 16th day of January, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notice to the following counsel of record: Rebekah Keith McKinney Philip M. DeFatta WATSON MCKINNEY, LLP 200 Clinton Avenue W Suite 110 Huntsville, AL 35801 mckinney@watsonmckinney.com defatta@watsonmckinney.com /s/ John B. Holmes, III OF COUNSEL 14

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 268 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
12/20/2017
COMPLAINT against Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC filed by Kuryakin C. Rucker.(SPT)
2
12/20/2017
Request for service by certified mail filed by Kuryakin C. Rucker. (SPT)
12/21/2017
Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number H4601003330 (Text entry; no document attached.)
3
12/21/2017
Summons Issued as to Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC by Clerk for service by certified mail. (SPT)
4
01/02/2018
SUMMONS Returned Executed Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC served on 12/26/2017, answer due 1/16/2018.
5
01/16/2018
ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC.
6
01/16/2018
NOTICE of Corporate Disclosure by Indorama Ventures Xylenes & PTA, LLC
7
01/18/2018
ORDER REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 26 as more fully set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Herman N Johnson, Jr on 01/18/18. (SPT)
8
01/18/2018
ORDER that a telephone status conference is set for 9:30 AM on Thursday, February 15, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Herman N Johnson, Jr on 01/18/18. (SPT)
9
01/18/2018
ORDER that the parties are hereby notified that, unless they unanimously consent to the dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge by no later than March 2, 2018, the case will be reassigned to a randomly-drawn district judge for all purposes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Herman N Johnson, Jr on 01/18/18. (SPT)
02/15/2018
TEXT ORDER that the telephone status conference set for 2/15/18 at 9:30 AM is CANCELED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Herman N Johnson, Jr on 2/15/18. (Text entry; no document attached.)
10
02/16/2018
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT: The parties having not unanimously consented to the dispositive jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge, the case has been randomly reassigned to Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr.; Magistrate Judge Herman N Johnson, Jr no longer assigned to the case; Please use case number 5:17-cv-2144-CLS on all subsequent pleadings. (SPT)
11
02/16/2018
ALND UNIFORM INITIAL ORDER GOVERNING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - with appendices attached. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 2/16/2018.
12
02/22/2018
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting.
13
02/28/2018
SCHEDULING ORDER: that certain time limits and deadlines apply as set out in this order; Discovery due by 11/1/2018; Dispositive Motions due by 12/3/2018; Witness and Exhibit Lists due by 1/4/2019; Trial ready by 2/2019. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 2/28/2018. (AHI)
14
03/15/2018
NOTICE by Kuryakin C. Rucker of Attorney Time Records
15
04/13/2018
NOTICE by Kuryakin C. Rucker of Attorney Time Modified on 4/13/2018
16
05/15/2018
NOTICE by Kuryakin C. Rucker of Attorney Time (AHI).
17
09/14/2018
NOTICE by Kuryakin C. Rucker of Attorney Time Records Modified on 9/17/2018
18
10/15/2018
NOTICE by Kuryakin C. Rucker of Attorney Time Records Modified on 10/17/2018
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.