3:26-cv-05160 Neufeld et al v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc
Reply to Response to Motion ( 22
This civil case involves Sanchez Marquez as the plaintiff against Dollar Tree Stores. The court granted an extension of time for the defendant to file a response, reply, or answer to the complaint. Extensions are common in civil litigation to allow parties adequate time to prepare their filings. The extension suggests active litigation but does not provide details on the underlying claims or issues. The case appears to be in the early stages of pleadings and procedural scheduling.
Latest development
Motion · April 15, 2026
In the case Neufeld et al v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc, the court granted an extension for the parties to file their response to a motion. This means the deadline to reply was extended, allowing more time to prepare arguments. It matters because it ensures both sides have adequate time to present their positions, which can affect the case's outcome.
description View filingReply to Response to Motion ( 22
Open original open_in_newJuryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
In the case Neufeld et al v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc, the court granted an extension for the parties to file their response to a motion. This means the deadline to reply was extended, allowing more time to prepare arguments. It matters because it ensures both sides have adequate time to present their positions, which can affect the case's outcome.
In the case of Sanchez Marquez v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., the court granted an extension of time for one party to file their response, reply, or answer. This means the party has more time to prepare and submit their legal documents. Extensions like this help ensure that both sides have a fair chance to present their arguments.
Reply to Response to Motion ( 22
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer ( 8
Sources tracked
1 outlet · 2 articles
Timeline events
2 records on file
Last updated
3 days, 21 hours ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.