Case Activity (2439)

1. Notice | Filed: October 08, 2026 | Entered: October 08, 2026 ABDELGAWAD v. DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

   Civil Rights: Jobs | North Carolina Middle

   Notice of Hearing

   NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Trial set for 12/6/2027 at 09:30 AM in Winston-Salem Courtroom #4 before District Judge DAVID A. BRAGDON. Unless the court orders otherwise, pretrial disclosures must be made no later than November 5, 2027. Motions in limine must be filed no later than November 12, 2027. Any objections to pretrial disclosures and responses to motions in limine must be served and promptly filed no later than November 19, 2027. Each party shall file a trial brief on the issues no later than November 15, 2027.(db)

2. Order | Filed: October 08, 2026 | Entered: October 08, 2026 ABDELGAWAD v. DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.

   Civil Rights: Jobs | North Carolina Middle

   Order

   TEXT ORDER directing the Clerk to re-issue 24 Notice, providing for this case to proceed to trial before the assigned United States District Judge, in light of 26 Notice of Non-Consent to Authority or Jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge (filed on 10/07/2026), in which -- prior to the entry of an order by the assigned District Judge referring the case to a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. s 636(c) -- Defendant withdrew its consent to such a referral, as originally expressed in 21 Amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report. According to Paragraph 6.b. of 21 Amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report (filed on 09/23/2026), "[t]he parties ha[d] discussed special procedures for managing this case, including the reference of the case to a Magistrate Judge on consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. ss [sic] 636(c), or appointment of a master and consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge and do not anticipate the need for a master in this case." Consistent with that unequivocal expression of the parties' consent to the referral of this case to a Magistrate Judge under Section 636(c), the Clerk issued 25 Notice cancelling 24 Notice, the latter of which had set this case for trial before the assigned District Judge. Five days after the Clerk's issuance of 25 Notice (but prior to the entry of an order referring this case to a Magistrate Judge under Section 636(c)), Defendant filed 26 Notice (A) stating (in Paragraph 3) that "the parties have not provided unanimous consent" (with emphasis on the word "not") and (B) "request[ing] that this matter remain before the [assigned District Judge], for further proceedings." Plaintiff thereafter filed 27 Response with attachments, including copies of e-mails docketed as [27-1] Exhibit A and [27-3] Exhibit C. In 27 Notice, Plaintiff disavowed "Defendant's characterization that unanimous consent was never provided" and pointed to language in the e-mail exchange between Plaintiff and Defendant's counsel on 09/21/2026 (documented in [27-1] Exhibit A) showing that Plaintiff agreed to Defendant's draft Rule 26(f) report's "proposed discovery schedule, Standard track, and consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction." Based on the plain language of 21 Joint Rule 26(f) Report and the parties' related, contemporaneous communications, the record establishes that, on 09/23/2026, Defendant and Plaintiff consented to the referral of this case to a Magistrate Judge under Section 636(c), such that the Clerk properly issued 25 Notice cancelling 24 Notice, contrary to the assertion of Defendant's counsel in an e-mail to Plaintiff on 10/02/2026 (documented in [27-3] Exhibit C), that "the Court ha[d] mistakenly taken [ 21 Joint] Rule 26(f) Report to mean that the parties consented to magistrate [sic] jurisdiction rather than a traditional Article III judge." Simply put, neither the Court nor the Clerk made any mistake as concerns th... (truncated)

3. 2437 additional result(s)