City of Los Angeles v. AT and T Mobility LLC et al
| City of Los Angeles |
| AT and T Mobility LLC and Does |
| AT and T Mobility LLC |
| City of Los Angeles |
| 2:2011cv06995 |
| August 24, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L. Abrams |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Prop. Damage Prod. Liability |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2012. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Answer to Complaint 9 Pdf shows answer includes an initiating document, a Counterclaim.. The following error(s) was found: Wrong event and Wrong procedure. Per G.O. 10.07, initiating documents are not e-filed, but manually filed with civil intake. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) |
| Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint and Counterclaim filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Rochefort, John) |
Filing 8
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Counsel are encouraged to review the Central Districts website for additional information. It is not necessary to clear a motion date with the Court Clerk prior to filing the motion. The Court hears motions only on Mondays at 10:00 a.m. The Court requires delivery of two non-blue backed Mandatory Chambers Copies of only the following manual and electronically filed documents: (1) All noticed motions and related documents; (2) All ex parte applications and related documents; and (3) All exhibits and attachments must be separately tabbed. [Refer to the Court's General Order No. 10-07 regarding ECF Courtesy Paper Copies.] (sch)
|
| Filing 7 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC, served on August 29, 2011. (Rochefort, John) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice to Adverse Party of Removal to Federal Court filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC, served on 8/24/2011. (et) (amar). |
| Filing 5 APPENDIX of State Court Pleadings and Papers 1 filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC. (et) (amar). |
| Filing 4 DECLARATION of CAROLYN J. WILDER in Support of Notice of Removal 1 filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC. (et) (amar). |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of JOHN M. ROCHEFORT in Support of Notice of Removal 1 filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC. (et) (amar). |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC, identifying Other Affiliate SBC Long Distance LLC, Other Affiliate BellSouth Mobile Data Inc, Other Affiliate AT and T Mobility Corporation, Other Affiliate SBC Alloy Holdings Inc, Other Affiliate New BellSouth Cingular Holdings Inc for AT and T Mobility LLC. (et) (amar). |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court for the CA for the County of Los Angeles, case number BC466048 with Conformed Filed copy of summons and complaint, attached to declaration of John M. Rochefort. Case assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Discovery to Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (Filing fee $ 350 Paid.), filed by Defendant AT and T Mobility LLC. (et) Modified on 8/25/2011 (et). (amar). |
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 California Central 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.
