Short v. Corizon Health Incorporated
Court Docket Sheet

District of Arizona

4:2016-cv-00050 (azd)

ORDERED: Joint Report due by 4/13/2016. Pretrial Scheduling Conference set for 4/20/2016 at 10:30 AM before Judge Rosemary Marquez. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/15/2016. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS).

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Teresa Short, No. CV-16-00050-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a telephonic Pretrial 16 Scheduling Conference is set for April 20, 2016, at 10:30 a.m., before Katie Callahan, 17 law clerk to the Honorable Rosemary Márquez, at (520) 205-4622. The conference shall 18 be initiated by Plaintiff, with all appropriate parties on the line. In preparation for this 19 Scheduling Conference, 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 The parties are directed to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the 22 objectives of the conference. At least one of the attorneys for each party attending the 23 conference shall have authority to enter into stipulations and make admissions regarding 24 all matters which may be discussed. 25 The parties are directed to confer at least 21 days before the conference, in 26 accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), to discuss the following matters: 27 A. The possibility of consent to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct 28 any or all proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the suitability for Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 6 1 referral of this matter for alternative dispute resolution, or the referral of 2 this matter to a special master; 3 B. Any matters relating to jurisdiction, venue, or the joinder of additional 4 parties; 5 C. The nature and bases of the parties’ claims and defenses and the 6 possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case; 7 D. A schedule of all pre-trial proceedings; 8 E. Modification of pre-trial procedures based on the simplicity or complexity 9 of the case; 10 F. Arrangements for Initial Disclosures in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 26(a)(1); 12 G. Development of a proposed discovery plan, including the subjects on which 13 discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and 14 whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or 15 focused upon particular issues; and 16 H. Any other matters which counsel may feel will help dispose of the matter in 17 an efficient manner. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall file with the Court, on or before 19 April 13, 2016, a Joint Report reflecting the results of their meeting and outlining their 20 discovery plan. It is the responsibility of Plaintiff’s counsel to initiate the communication 21 necessary to prepare the Joint Report. Willful failure to comply may result in the 22 imposition of sanctions. The report shall include brief, individually numbered statements 23 indicating: 24 1. The nature of the case, setting forth in brief statements the factual and legal 25 bases for Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses, and the relief sought; 26 2. A list of the elements of proof necessary for each count of the complaint 27 and each affirmative defense. Where the burden of proof shifts, each party 28 shall list the elements of proof that party must prove in order to prevail.-2-Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 3 of 6 1 The list of the elements of proof must contain citations to relevant legal 2 authority (i.e., United States statutory and/or administrative law, United 3 States Supreme Court case law, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case law, 4 State of Arizona case law and statutory law, or other authority as dictated 5 by the conflicts of law rules); 6 3. The factual and legal issues genuinely in dispute and whether they can be 7 narrowed by stipulation or motion; 8 4. The jurisdictional basis for the case, citing specific jurisdictional statutes, 9 and whether jurisdiction is disputed; 10 5. The parties, if any, that have not been served, as well as parties which have 11 not filed an answer or other appearance. Unless counsel can otherwise 12 show cause, the joint report shall be accompanied by a stipulation and a 13 form of order dismissing any party which has not been served, or a motion 14 seeking default on any non-appearing party; 15 6. The names of parties not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction; 16 7. Whether there are dispositive or partially dispositive issues to be decided 17 by pre-trial motions, and the legal issues about which any pretrial motions 18 are contemplated; 19 8. Whether the parties anticipate filing cross-motions for summary judgment 20 and, if so, whether it is feasible to adopt an abbreviated briefing schedule 21 consisting of: (1) a motion, (2) a response/cross-motion, (3) a response to 22 cross-motion/reply and (4) a reply to cross-motion. If an abbreviated 23 briefing schedule is feasible, the parties should propose page limitations 24 and filing deadlines for each brief; 25 9. Whether the case is suitable for reference to arbitration, to a special master, 26 or to a United States Magistrate Judge; 27 10. The status of related cases pending before other judges of this court or 28 before other courts and whether it is appropriate for any matters to be-3-Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 4 of 6 1 consolidated pursuant to Rule 42.1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice of the 2 United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("LRCiv"); 3 11. Any proposed changes in the timing, form, or requirements for Initial 4 Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and any objection to Initial 5 Disclosures; 6 12. Suggested changes, if any, to the limitations on discovery imposed by the 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 8 13. The scope, nature, and location of discovery anticipated by the parties, 9 including when discovery should be completed and whether discovery 10 should be conducted in phases or should be limited to or focused upon 11 particular issues; 12 14. A discussion of any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of 13 electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it 14 should be produced; 15 15. A discussion of any issues relating to claims of privilege or work product; 16 16. What evidentiary hearings, such as Daubert hearings, will be required and 17 when such hearings shall be held; 18 17. The estimated date that the case will be ready for trial, the estimated length 19 of trial, and any suggestions for shortening the trial; 20 18. Whether a jury trial has been requested, whether the request for jury trial is 21 contested, and, if the request is contested, the reasons that a trial by jury is 22 in dispute; 23 19. The prospects for settlement, including whether the parties wish to have a 24 settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge and whether the parties 25 seek the Court’s assistance in facilitating settlement in any other way; 26 20. In class actions, the proposed dates for class certification proceedings and 27 other class management issues. Such certification will result in the case 28 being reassigned to the complex track for case management purposes-4-Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 5 of 6 1 pursuant to LRCiv. 16.2; 2 21. Any unusual, difficult, or complex problems affecting the conduct of the 3 case or which would require the case to be placed on the complex track for 4 case management purposes pursuant to LRCiv. 16.2; 5 22. Any other matters which counsel feel will aid the Court in resolving this 6 dispute in a just, expeditious, and efficient manner; and 7 23. Proposed deadlines for: 8 a. Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and pretrial 9 disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3); 10 b. Addition of parties or amending complaint; 11 c. Disclosure of expert testimony and rebuttal expert testimony 12 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); 13 d. Discovery (if the parties believe that discovery will require more 14 than 180 days, counsel must provide an explanation showing why, in 15 the instant case, a lengthier period for discovery is necessary); 16 e. Filing dispositive motions; 17 f. Filing settlement status reports; 18 g. Filing the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order; 19 After the conference, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order limiting the time 20 within which counsel may file pre-trial motions, complete discovery, and file the 21 proposed pre-trial order. To the extent that the Court’s Scheduling Order differs from the 22 parties’ proposed schedule, the provisions of the Court’s Order shall supersede the 23 parties’ proposed schedule and shall control the course of the action unless modified by 24 subsequent Order. The parties and their counsel are cautioned that the deadlines set in 25 the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be strictly enforced and may be modified only for 26 good cause. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties are expected to comply with Fed. 28 R. Civ. P. 26, and to minimize the expense of discovery. Counsel should ensure that all-5-Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 14 Filed 03/16/16 Page 6 of 6 1 documents filed with the Court comply with LRCiv. 7.1 and 7.2. Failure to comply with 2 the provisions of this Order may lead to sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). 3 Dated this 15th day of March, 2016. 4 5 6 Honorable Rosemary Márquez 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-6-

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Corizon Health Incorporated, Corizon LLC.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 13 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 4 THERESA SHORT, Individually and on No. 4:16-cv-00050-RM 5 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, JOINT REPORT REGARDING THE 6 Plaintiff, PARTIES’ RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE 7 v. 8 CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CORIZON, 9 LLC, 10 Defendants. 11 The above-named Plaintiff and Defendants hereby submit this Report in accordance with 12 the Court’s March 16, 2016 Order ("Order") and state as follows: 13 14 I. OVERVIEW 15 Plaintiff has styled this case as an FLSA collective action. As such, and in accordance 16 with LRCiv. 16.2 and the Court’s March 16, 2016 Order, the Parties have adapted the 17 Court’s template to the specifics of this matter and how FLSA collective actions are 18 commonly litigated in this District. Because this is an FLSA collective action, which 19 Plaintiff contends could potentially involve over one hundred potential plaintiffs, the Parties 20 propose that the case proceed in two separate phases that will affect all of the deadline 21 proposals sought by the Court in its Order and the Court’s template: 22 Phase One would be limited to precertification discovery and the Court’s consideration of 23 Plaintiffs’ anticipated Motion for Conditional Collective Certification. 24 The Plaintiff proposes the following Phase One schedule: 25 1. The Parties shall complete all precertification written discovery, including 26 Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, as well as depositions, by 27 October 7, 2016. 28 Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 13 1 2. Plaintiff shall file and serve her conditional collective certification motion by 2 November 11, 2016. 3 3. Defendants shall file and serve their papers in opposition to Plaintiff’s conditional 4 collective certification motion by November 30, 2016. 5 4. Plaintiff shall file and serve reply papers in support of her conditional collective 6 certification motion by December 16, 2016. 7 Defendant proposes the following Phase One schedule: 8 1. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures on or before April 27, 2016. 9 2. Plaintiff shall complete her precertification written discovery, including Interrogatories 10 and Requests for Production of Documents, as well as depositions, by September 16, 11 2016. 12 3. Plaintiff shall file and serve her conditional collective certification motion by October 13 14, 2016. 14 4. Defendants shall complete their precertification discovery, and shall file and serve 15 their papers in opposition to Plaintiff’s conditional collective certification motion, by 16 December 16, 2016. 17 5. Plaintiff shall file and serve reply papers in support of her conditional collective 18 certification motion by January 6, 2017. 19 20 Phase Two of the case would begin immediately after the Court rules on Plaintiff’s 21 conditional collective certification motion. In the event the Court denies conditional 22 collective certification, the Parties propose that the Court’s Scheduling Order issued as a 23 result of this report (1) direct the Parties to meet and confer within 30 days after Phase Two 24 begins to conduct a second Rule 16 conference, (2) direct the parties to file, within 14 days 25 of the meeting, a proposed scheduling order addressing the deadlines identified in the 26 Court’s March 16, 2016 Order, and (3) direct the parties to submit a proposed case 27 management plan and scheduling order setting forth how the matter will be litigated and 28 tried. ii Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 13 1 In the event the Court grants conditional collective certification, the Parties propose the 2 3 same order of proceedings as set forth in the previous paragraph. However, without knowing 4 at this time the size of the class subject to conditional collective certification, the Parties are 5 unable to anticipate with certainty the amount of time necessary to complete discovery. 6 Based on the experience of counsel for the Parties, once Phase Two commences, the 7 8 discovery process could take between 9-12 months to complete, depending on the number of 9 individuals who consent to become opt-in plaintiffs, if any. The parties believe that 9-12 10 months may be a reasonable and necessary amount of time in which to conduct discovery in 11 this case because (1) the Parties need adequate time to schedule and take depositions of 12 13 potential fact witnesses involved in this case; (2) the Parties anticipate designating expert 14 witnesses in this case and adequate time will be needed to obtain and depose those experts; 15 and (3) the Parties need to allow time in which they may conduct additional written 16 discovery in this case. Additionally, the Parties anticipate filing Motions for Summary 17 18 Judgment after some post-certification discovery has taken place. The proposed second 19 scheduling conference at the beginning of Phase Two will allow the Parties to confer with 20 more specific knowledge as to the needs of this action. 21 22 II. RULE 26(F) REPORT 23 A. The possibility of consent to a United States Magistrate Judge. 24 The Parties do not consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 25 26 B. Matters relating to jurisdiction, venue, or the joinder of additional parties. 27 The Parties do not challenge the appropriateness of this Court’s jurisdiction or venue. 28 Plaintiff anticipates the joinder of additional opt-in plaintiffs. iii Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 4 of 13 1 2 C. The nature and bases of the parties’ claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. 3 Plaintiff’s statement: 4 5 Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 et seq. ("FLSA"). Plaintiff asserts Defendants failed to pay her in accordance with the 6 FLSA. Particularly and as more fully described in Plaintiff’s First Amended 7 Complaint, Plaintiff and the Class of Potential Plaintiffs were not compensated for 8 time they were required to work through their regularly-scheduled meal breaks. 9 Because these individuals were regularly-scheduled to work 40 hours, this 10 uncompensated time is owed at overtime rates. Defendants have previously been 11 sued for this very same alleged violation, yet their common, nationwide, practice 12 persists. See e.g., Mangus v. Corizon Health, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01358-EAK-13 EAJ (M.D. Florida)(FLSA collective action brought on behalf of Defendants’ LPNs, 14 CNAs, and RNs in Florida who were required to work through all or part of their meal 15 breaks)(closed October 15, 2014); Jones et al v. Corizon Inc, Case No. 5:12-cv-16 00057-KGB (E.D. Ark.)(FLSA collective action brought in part on basis that 17 individuals were required to work through their meal breaks that was ultimately 18 certified as a collective action on behalf of "non-exempt employees employed at 19 correctional facilities at which Corizon operated in the State of Arkansas and the State of Alabama, during the period September 1, 2009 to [November 16, 2012]," Dkt. 20 #45)(case closed April 1, 2013). Plaintiff seeks the payment of overtime wages, 21 liquidated damages, damages for willful violations of the FLSA, and attorneys’ fees, 22 costs and expenses pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 216. Plaintiff brings this matters as 23 a collective action pursuant to § 216(b) of the FLSA and has been joined by two Early 24 Opt-In Plaintiffs at the time of the filing of this report, Kathe Douglas (worked for 25 Defendants in Missouri) and Melissa Newcomb (worked for Defendants in Idaho) to 26 date. See Dkt. #15. 27 Defendants’ statement: 28 iv Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 5 of 13 1 Defendants contend that no policy or practice exists, or existed during any times 2 relevant to the Complaint, pursuant to which Plaintiff or any of the members of the 3 putative class Plaintiff seeks to represent were required to work through meal breaks 4 or were not properly compensated for work performed during meal breaks (if any). 5 Plaintiff was paid for all hours worked on behalf of her employer, Corizon LLC, 6 consistent with the FLSA. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff’s claims are barred or otherwise subject to all other defenses set forth in Defendants’ Answer to 7 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Furthermore, Defendants deny that 8 Corizon Health, Inc. was ever Plaintiff’s employer for any purpose relevant to any 9 claims alleged in the FAC. 10 11 D. A schedule of all pre-trial proceedings; 12 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose submitting an Agreed Case 13 Management Plan addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described 14 in Section I above. 15 16 E. Modification of pre-trial procedures based on the simplicity or complexity of the case; 17 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 18 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 19 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 20 21 F. Arrangements for Initial Disclosures; 22 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose submitting a Joint Proposed Case 23 Management Plan addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described 24 in Section I above. 25 G. Development of a proposed discovery plan, including the subjects on which 26 discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular 27 issues; and 28 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective v Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 6 of 13 1 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 2 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 3 H. Any other matters which counsel may feel will help dispose of the matter in 4 an efficient manner. 5 None at this time other than those described in Overview, Section I. 6 7 III. INDIVIDUALLY NUMBERED STATEMENTS 8 1. The nature of the case, setting forth in brief statements the factual and legal 9 bases for Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses, and the relief sought; 10 Please see § II C, supra. 11 12 2. A list of the elements of proof necessary for each count of the complaint 13 and each affirmative defense. 14 Plaintiff’s statement: 15 Elements of proof for Count I – violation of the FLSA: 16 17 A. Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants during the 18 statutory period. 19 B. Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were employed by an enterprise engaged in 20 commerce or the production of goods for commerce that had annual gross sales of 21 22 at least $500,000.00. 23 C. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs overtime pay for all 24 hours worked by plaintiff in excess of 40 in one or more workweeks covered by 25 the lawsuit. 26 27 Defendants’ statement 28 vi Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 7 of 13 1 Defendants incorporate, by reference, all affirmative and other defenses set forth in 2 their Answer to the FAC. 3 3. The factual and legal issues genuinely in dispute and whether they can be 4 narrowed by stipulation or motion; 5 6 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 7 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 8 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 9 Additionally, the factual and legal issues in dispute are: 10 1. Whether Plaintiff was employed by Corizon Health, Inc. 11 2. Whether Plaintiff was ever required to work through a meal breaks and was not 12 compensated for such time. 13 3. Whether a policy or practice existed pursuant to which Plaintiff’s employer 14 required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work through meal breaks 15 without being compensated for such time. 16 4. Whether Plaintiff or similarly situated employees worked more than 40 hours 17 per week. 4. The jurisdictional basis for the case, citing specific jurisdictional statutes, 18 19 and whether jurisdiction is disputed; 20 This Court has jurisdiction over the claim because Plaintiff has asserted a claim 21 arising under federal law. Jurisdiction is not disputed. 22 5. The parties, if any, that have not been served, as well as parties which have 23 24 not filed an answer or other appearance. Unless counsel can otherwise show cause, the 25 joint report shall be accompanied by a stipulation and a form of order dismissing any 26 party which has not been served, or a motion seeking default on any non-appearing 27 party; 28 vii Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 8 of 13 1 All parties have been served and/or made an appearance 2 6. The names of parties not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction; 3 None 4 5 7. Whether there are dispositive or partially dispositive issues to be decided by 6 pre-trial motions, and the legal issues about which any pretrial motions are 7 contemplated; 8 Plaintiff: None are contemplated at this time aside from Plaintiff’s motion for notice 9 10 and conditional certification. See Overview, Section I. 11 Defendants: Defendants will oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Collective Action 12 Certification and anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment. 13 14 15 8. Whether the parties anticipate filing cross-motions for summary judgment 16 and, if so, whether it is feasible to adopt an abbreviated briefing schedule consisting of: 17 (1) a motion, (2) a response/cross-motion, (3) a response to cross-motion/reply and (4) 18 a reply to cross-motion. If an abbreviated briefing schedule is feasible, the parties 19 20 should propose page limitations and filing deadlines for each brief; 21 The Parties do not believe an abbreviated schedule is feasible at this time. 22 9. Whether the case is suitable for reference to arbitration, to a special master, 23 or to a United States Magistrate Judge; 24 25 The Parties do not believe this case is suitable for reference to arbitration, a special 26 master or a United States Magistrate Judge. 27 10. The status of related cases pending before other judges of this court or before 28 viii Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 9 of 13 1 other courts and whether it is appropriate for any matters to be consolidated pursuant 2 to Rule 42.1(a) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the 3 District of Arizona ("LRCiv"); 4 5 The Parties are unaware of any related cases currently pending. 6 11. Any proposed changes in the timing, form, or requirements for Initial 7 Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and any objection to Initial Disclosures; 8 9 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 10 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 11 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 12 12. Suggested changes, if any, to the limitations on discovery imposed by the 13 14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 15 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 16 action in phases as described above. 17 18 13. The scope, nature, and location of discovery anticipated by the parties, 19 including when discovery should be completed and whether discovery should be 20 conducted in phases or should be limited to or focused upon particular issues; 21 22 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 23 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 24 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 25 26 14. A discussion of any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically 27 stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced; 28 ix Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 10 of 13 1 Although the parties do not anticipate any issues regarding the disclosure or discovery 2 of electronically stored information ("ESI"), the parties agree that in response to a request for 3 ESI, the responding party will produce responsive information in a reasonably usable and/or 4 searchable format, if available, including but not limited to searchable.pdf or.tif files. The 5 parties agree that ESI need not be produced in more than one form or format. The parties 6 further agree that to the extent any party seeks ESI that would be cumulative, burdensome or 7 unduly costly to produce, counsel for the parties will confer in good faith to reach a mutual 8 agreement regarding the production of such information. 9 10 15. A discussion of any issues relating to claims of privilege or work product; 11 12 None at this time. 13 16. What evidentiary hearings, such as Daubert hearings, will be required and 14 when such hearings shall be held; 15 None are contemplated at this time. 16 17 17. The estimated date that the case will be ready for trial, the estimated length 18 of trial, and any suggestions for shortening the trial; 19 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 20 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 21 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 22 23 18. Whether a jury trial has been requested, whether the request for jury trial is 24 contested, and, if the request is contested, the reasons that a trial by jury is in dispute; 25 26 A jury has been demanded. 27 19. The prospects for settlement, including whether the parties wish to have a 28 x Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 11 of 13 1 settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge and whether the parties seek the 2 Court’s assistance in facilitating settlement in any other way; 3 The parties feel that it will be more appropriate to discuss settlement once the Court 4 5 rules on Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for conditional certification; however, the Parties are 6 open to discussing settlement at any time. The Parties do not presently wish to have a 7 settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge, but may seek to resolve this matter through 8 use of a mediator or informal negotiations and otherwise reserve the right to request a 9 10 settlement conference before a magistrate judge. 11 20. In class actions, the proposed dates for class certification proceedings and 12 other class management issues. Such certification will result in the case being 13 reassigned to the complex track for case management purposes pursuant to LRCiv. 14 15 16.2; 16 See Overview, Section I. Though this is not a class action, the Parties propose 17 approaching this FLSA collective action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint 18 Proposed Case Management Plan addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 19 conference described in Section I above. 20 21 21. Any unusual, difficult, or complex problems affecting the conduct of the case 22 or which would require the case to be placed on the complex track for case 23 24 management purposes pursuant to LRCiv. 16.2; 25 Not at this time. 26 22. Any other matters which counsel feel will aid the Court in resolving this 27 dispute in a just, expeditious, and efficient manner; 28 xi Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 12 of 13 1 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 2 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 3 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 4 23. Proposed deadlines for: 5 a. Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and pretrial disclosures 6 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) b. Addition of parties or amending complaint; 7 c. Disclosure of expert testimony and rebuttal expert testimony pursuant to Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 26(a)(2); d. Discovery (if the parties believe that discovery will require more than 180 days, 9 counsel must provide an explanation showing why, in the instant case, a lengthier 10 period for discovery is necessary); e. Filing dispositive motions; 11 f. Filing settlement status reports; g. Filing the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order; 12 13 See Overview, Section I. The Parties propose approaching this FLSA collective 14 action in phases as described above and submitting a Joint Proposed Case Management Plan 15 addressing this subject matter in the second Rule 16 conference described in Section I above. 16 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of April, 2016. 17 LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 18 STEWART, P.C. 19 20 21 By: s/Jay Forester. By: s/Tibor Nagy, Jr. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 xii Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 17 Filed 04/13/16 Page 13 of 13 1 J. Derek Braziel* Tibor Nagy, Jr. J. Forester* Christopher M. Pastore 2 LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 3 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Tucson, AZ 85718 Dallas, TX 75202 Attorneys for Defendant Corizon Health, 4 *Admitted Pro hac vice Inc. 5 JACK SIEGEL** 6 Texas Bar No. 24070621 Siegel Law Group PLLC 7 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 8 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 9 **Applying for admission Pro 10 hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 xiii

STIPULATION re: [18] Scheduling Order extending motion for notice deadline until 12/6/16 by Teresa Short.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 21 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 4 THERESA SHORT, Individually and on No. 4:16-cv-00050-RM 5 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING 6 Plaintiff, FIRST STAGE, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION DEADLINES 7 v. 8 CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CORIZON, 9 LLC, 10 Defendants. 11 12 STIPULATION 13 Plaintiff Theresa Sort, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated, ("Plaintiff") 14 and Corizon Health, Inc., Corizon, LLC ("Defendant") (collectively, "Parties") hereby stipulate and 15 mutually show that after discussion between counsel regarding discovery matters in this case and in 16 order to permit early settlement discussions, counsel have mutually agreed to extend deadlines as 17 follows: 18 19 CURRENT DEADLINE PROPOSED DEADLINE 20 Deadline for Plaintiff to file October 28, 2016 December 6, 2016 Motion for Notice and 21 Conditional Certification 22 23 Signed this _______________, 2016 24 _____________________________ 25 United States District Judge 26 27 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT AND FORM this 14th day of October, 28 2016. Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 21 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2 1 LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 2 STEWART, P.C. 3 4 5 By: s/Jay Forester. By: s/Tibor Nagy, Jr. 6 J. Derek Braziel* Tibor Nagy, Jr. J. Forester* Christopher M. Pastore 7 LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 8 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Tucson, AZ 85718 Dallas, TX 75202 Attorneys for Defendant Corizon Health, 9 *Admitted Pro hac vice Inc. 10 JACK SIEGEL** 11 Texas Bar No. 24070621 Siegel Law Group PLLC 12 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 13 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 14 **Applying for admission Pro hac vice 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii

Text of Proposed Order

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 21-1 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 1 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 4 THERESA SHORT, Individually and on No. 4:16-cv-00050-RM 5 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING 6 Plaintiff, FIRST STAGE, CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION DEADLINES 7 v. 8 CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CORIZON, 9 LLC, 10 Defendants. 11 12 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 13 The Court having been presented the Parties’ stipulation hereby finds and orders to 14 extend deadlines as follows: 15 16 CURRENT DEADLINE PROPOSED DEADLINE 17 Deadline for Plaintiff to file October 28, 2016 December 6, 2016 Motion for Notice and 18 Conditional Certification 19 20 Signed this _______________, 2016 21 _____________________________ 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER that the Joint Stipulation (Doc. [21]) is approved. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is extended to December 6, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 10/14/2016.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 22 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Teresa Short, No. CV-16-00050-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding First Stage, Conditional 16 Certification Deadlines (Doc. 21), and good cause appearing, 17 IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation (Doc. 21) is approved. The deadline 18 for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is extended to 19 December 6, 2016. 20 Dated this 14th day of October, 2016. 21 22 23 Honorable Rosemary Márquez United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

NOTICE re: of withdrawal of consent of Kathe Douglas by Teresa Short re: [15] Notice (Other).

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA THERESA SHORT, Individually and on No. 4:16-cv-00050-RM Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CORIZON, LLC, Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT Plaintiff previously filed a consent for Kathe Douglas to join this matter. Plaintiff hereby withdraws the consent of Kathe Douglas. Respectfully submitted, _/s/J. Forester____________________________ J. DEREK BRAZIEL* Texas Bar No. 00793380 J. FORESTER* Texas Bar No. 24087532 Lee & Braziel, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-1400 phone (214) 749-1010 fax www.overtimelawyer.com JACK SIEGEL Co-Attorney in Charge Texas Bar No. 24070621 Siegel Law Group PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy. Suite 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 (214) 790-4454 phone (469) 339-0204 fax www.4overtimelawyer.com *Admitted Pro Hac Vice 1 Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 23 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I e-filed the foregoing document via the Court’s ECF system. _/s/J. Forester_______________________ J. FORESTER

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Until 1/5/17 by Teresa Short.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 24 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 3 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 4 THERESA SHORT, Individually and on No. 4:16-cv-00050-RM 5 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND 6 Plaintiff, STAGE ONE DEADLINES 7 v. 8 CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CORIZON, 9 LLC, 10 Defendants. 11 12 NOW COME the Parties and pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure respectfully request an extension of time for Plaintiff to file her Motion for 14 15 Conditional Certification ("Motion"). As the Parties continue discussions regarding possible 16 early resolution of this matter, the Parties request that the Court amend its First Phase of 17 Scheduling Order Regarding Bifurcated Discovery ("Order") to permit Plaintiff until January 18 5, 2017 to file her Motion for Conditional Certification, with Defendants Response and 19 20 Plaintiff’s Reply deadlines running from that date. 21 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that this Court grant this joint motion 22 for an extension of time and amend its Order to permit Plaintiff to have until January 5, 2017 23 to file her Motion for Conditional Certification and that the response and reply deadlines be 24 25 amended as stated above. 26 27 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of December, 2016. 28 Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 24 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 3 1 LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 2 STEWART, P.C. 3 4 5 By: s/Derek Braziel________________ By: s/Tibor Nagy, Jr. 6 J. Derek Braziel Tibor Nagy, Jr. J. Forester Christopher M. Pastore 7 LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 8 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Tucson, AZ 85718 Dallas, TX 75202 Attorneys for Defendant Corizon Health, 9 Inc. 10 JACK SIEGEL 11 Texas Bar No. 24070621 Siegel Law Group PLLC 12 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 13 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 24 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1

Text of Proposed Order

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 24-1 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 4 THERESA SHORT, Individually and on No. 4:16-cv-00050-RM 5 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 6 Plaintiff, EXTEND STAGE ONE DEADLINES 7 v. 8 CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CORIZON, 9 LLC, 10 Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Plaintiff to file her 13 Motion for Conditional Certification ("Motion"). The Court, having considered the Motion, hereby 14 GRANTS Plaintiff’s request that the Court amend its First Phase of Scheduling Order Regarding 15 16 Bifurcated Discovery ("Order") and ORDERS that the Plaintiff has until January 5, 2017 to file 17 her Motion for Conditional Certification, with Defendant’s Response and Plaintiff’s Reply deadlines 18 running from that date. 19 20 Signed this _____ day of _____________________, 2016. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 24-1 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1

ORDER granting the [24] Joint Motion to Extend Stage One Deadlines. Plaintiff shall have until 1/5/2017 to file her Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant's Response is due 2/9/2017; Plaintiff's Reply is due 3/2/2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 12/7/2016.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 25 Filed 12/07/16 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Teresa Short, No. CV-16-00050-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Stage One 16 Deadlines (Doc. 24). The Court will grant the Motion; however, the Court reminds the 17 parties that Local Rule 7.3 requires any party moving for an extension of time by motion 18 or stipulation to "disclose the existence of all previous extensions which have been 19 granted concerning the matter for which an extension is sought" and to include below the 20 title of the motion or stipulation "[a] statement indicating whether the motion or 21 stipulation is the first, second, third, etc. requested extension." LRCiv 7.3(a). Any future 22 motions or stipulations for extensions of time must comply with Local Rule 7.3. 23.... 24.... 25.... 26.... 27.... 28.... Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 25 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 of 2 1 IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend (Doc. 24) is granted. Plaintiff 2 shall have until January 5, 2017 to file her Motion for Conditional Certification. 3 Defendant’s Response is due on or before February 9, 2017. Plaintiff’s Reply is due on 4 or before March 2, 2017. 5 Dated this 7th day of December, 2016. 6 7 8 Honorable Rosemary Márquez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28-2-

NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Teresa Short.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 26 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 4 THERESA SHORT, Individually and on No. 4:16-cv-00050-RM 5 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 6 Plaintiff, ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT 7 v. 8 CORIZON HEALTH, INC., CORIZON, 9 LLC, 10 Defendants. 11 12 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT 13 Plaintiff hereby accepts the offer of judgment served by Defendants on December 21, 2016. 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 _/s/J. Forester_______________________ 16 J. DEREK BRAZIEL Texas Bar No. 00793380 17 J. FORESTER* Texas Bar No. 24087532 18 Lee & Braziel, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 19 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 749-1400 phone 20 (214) 749-1010 fax www.overtimelawyer.com 21 JACK SIEGEL 22 Co-Attorney in Charge Texas Bar No. 24070621 23 Siegel Law Group PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy. 24 Suite 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 25 (214) 790-4454 phone (469) 339-0204 fax 26 www.4overtimelawyer.com 27 28 Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 26 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 2 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered via the 3 Court’s e-filing system, on the following: 4 Counsel for Defendant 5 Tibor Nagy, Jr. tibor.nagy@ogletreedeakins.com 6 Christopher M. Pastore christopher.pastore@ogletreedeakins.com 7 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 Tucson, AZ 85718 8 Fax: 520-544-9675 9 _/s/J. Forester________________________ 10 J. FORESTER 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii

ORDER re: [26] Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment filed by Teresa Short, on or before 3/20/2017 the parties shall file either a joint stipulation of dismissal or a status report notifying the Court of the status of this case. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/6/2017.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 27 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Teresa Short, No. CV-16-00050-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment 16 (Doc. 26). The docket does not reflect any subsequent activity. 17 IT IS ORDERED that, on or before March 20, 2017, the parties shall file either 18 (1) a joint stipulation of dismissal, or (2) a status report notifying the Court of the status 19 of this case. 20 Dated this 6th day of March, 2017. 21 22 23 Honorable Rosemary Márquez United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Corizon Health Incorporated, Corizon LLC.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 28 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 2 Tibor Nagy, Jr., SBN 007465 1 Christopher M. Pastore, SBN 026340 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 2 STEWART, P.C., SBN 00504800 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 3 Tucson, AZ 85718 Telephone: 520.544.0300 4 Fax: 520.544.9675 tibor.nagy@ogletreedeakins.com 5 christopher.pastore@ogletreedeakins.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 Theresa Short, Individually and on behalf No. 4:16-cv-00050-TUC-RM 11 of All Others Similarly Situated,, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 13 WITH PREJUDICE v. 14 Corizon Health, Inc., Corizon, LLC, 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 Telephone: 520.544.0300 15 Defendants. Tucson, AZ 85718 16 17 Plaintiff Theresa Short ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Corizon Health, Inc. and 18 Corizon, LLC (collectively "Defendants") by and through their respective undersigned 19 attorneys, hereby stipulate that the above-captioned matter may be dismissed with prejudice 20 in its entirety, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 21///22///23///24///25///26///27///28///Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 28 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 2 DATED this 17th day of March, 2017. 1 2 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & 3 LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP STEWART, P.C. 4 5 6 By: s/J. Forester. By: s/Christopher M. Pastore 7 Derek Braziel Tibor Nagy, Jr. J. Forester Christopher M. Pastore 8 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 9 Dallas, TX 75202 Tucson, AZ 85718 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants 10 11 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 29113451.1 12 13 14 3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 220 Telephone: 520.544.0300 15 Tucson, AZ 85718 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Text of Proposed Order Order of Dismissal

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 28-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 Theresa Short, Individually and on behalf No. 4:16-cv-00050-TUC-RM 10 of All Others Similarly Situated,, 11 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 12 v. 13 Corizon Health, Inc., Corizon, LLC, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties [Doc ___], and good cause appearing, 17 IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear 18 its own costs and attorney’s fees. 19 29113675.1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER granting [28] Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. This action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/17/2017.

Case 4:16-cv-00050-RM Document 29 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Teresa Short, No. CV-16-00050-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice 16 (Doc. 28). Good cause appearing, 17 IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 28) is approved. This 18 action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 19 Dated this 17th day of March, 2017. 20 21 22 Honorable Rosemary Márquez United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 743 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
01/25/2016
COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number TUC023903 filed by Teresa Short.
1
Civil Cover Sheet
2
Certificate
3
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025115400734" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025115400734','962238','6','','2','1','',''}};">3</a> Receipt)
3 Attachments
2
01/25/2016
SUMMONS Submitted by Teresa Short.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025115400749" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025115400749','962238','8','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Summons)
1 Attachment
3
01/25/2016
This case has been assigned to the Honorable Rosemary Marquez. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: 4:16-CV-00050-TUC-RM. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached.
4
01/26/2016
Summons Issued as to Corizon Health Incorporated. *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025115402236" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025115402236','962238','14','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Summons)
1 Attachment
01/26/2016
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 70, receipt number TUC023902 as to Jesse Hamilton Forester, Jimmy Derek Braziel. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
5
01/25/2016
MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jesse Hamilton Forester on behalf of Teresa Short.
6
01/25/2016
MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jimmy Derek Braziel on behalf of Teresa Short.
7
01/26/2016
ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 5 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
8
02/16/2016
AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Teresa Short.
9
02/16/2016
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT and TO ACCEPT SERVICE.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
10
02/17/2016
*ORDER granting 9 Stipulation For Extension of Time. Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before Tuesday, March 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 2/16/2016. (DPS) *NEF regenerated on 2/17/2016
11
03/15/2016
ANSWER to 8 Amended Complaint by Corizon Health Incorporated, Corizon LLC. Modified on 3/16/2016, incorrect case number listed on document
12
03/15/2016
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Corizon Health Incorporated.
13
03/15/2016
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Corizon LLC.
14
03/16/2016
ORDERED: Joint Report due by 4/13/2016. Pretrial Scheduling Conference set for 4/20/2016 at 10:30 AM before Judge Rosemary Marquez. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/15/2016. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS).
15
04/06/2016
NOTICE by Teresa Short of Filing Additional Consents.
1
Exhibit A - Kathe Douglas
2
Exhibit B - Melissa Newcomb
2 Attachments
16
04/07/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Jesse Hamilton Forester on behalf of Teresa Short.
17
04/13/2016
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Corizon Health Incorporated, Corizon LLC.
18
04/25/2016
SCHEDULING ORDER: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures required on or before 4/27/2016. Phase One Discovery. The parties shall complete all precertification discovery, including written discovery and depositions of parties and witnesses, by 10/7/2016. Plaintiff's conditional collective certification motion shall be filed on or before 10/28/2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 4/22/2016. (See attached PDF for complete information)
19
06/24/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Corizon Health Incorporated, Corizon LLC.
20
09/02/2016
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Corizon Health Incorporated, Corizon LLC.
21
10/14/2016
STIPULATION re: [18] Scheduling Order extending motion for notice deadline until 12/6/16 by Teresa Short.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
22
10/14/2016
ORDER that the Joint Stipulation (Doc. [21]) is approved. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification is extended to December 6, 2016. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 10/14/2016.
23
11/22/2016
NOTICE re: of withdrawal of consent of Kathe Douglas by Teresa Short re: [15] Notice (Other).
24
12/06/2016
Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Until 1/5/17 by Teresa Short.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
25
12/07/2016
ORDER granting the [24] Joint Motion to Extend Stage One Deadlines. Plaintiff shall have until 1/5/2017 to file her Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant's Response is due 2/9/2017; Plaintiff's Reply is due 3/2/2017. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 12/7/2016.
26
01/03/2017
NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Teresa Short.
27
03/07/2017
ORDER re: [26] Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment filed by Teresa Short, on or before 3/20/2017 the parties shall file either a joint stipulation of dismissal or a status report notifying the Court of the status of this case. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/6/2017.
28
03/17/2017
STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Corizon Health Incorporated, Corizon LLC.
1
Text of Proposed Order Order of Dismissal
1 Attachment
29
03/17/2017
ORDER granting [28] Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. This action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/17/2017.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.