Jose A. Ramirez v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Jose A. Ramirez v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.

Jose A. Ramirez v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Jose Angel Ramirez
Defendant:	Pacer Cartage, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2015cv03830
Filed:	May 20, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Alicia G. Rosenberg
Presiding Judge:	Otis D. Wright
Nature of Suit:	Labor: Other

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 16, 2017	Filing 76 JUDGMENT by Judge William D. Keller: Judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiffs Jose A. Ramirez, Jose Alba, Jose Peraza, Mario Alba and Mauricio Rodriguez, and against defendant Pacer Cartage, Inc., also known as XPO Cartage, Inc. f/k/a Pac er Cartage, Inc. (See Judgment for further details) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall serve, by United States mail or by telefax or by email, copies of this Judgment on counsel for the defendant in this matter. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (yl)
October 27, 2015	Filing 14 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO REMAND by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Despite this obviously improper removal, the Court has determined that it lacks the power to remand this case. The Court has no authority to sua sponte remand an action for procedural defects in removal. Moreover, a request to remand the case must be made within thirty days of removal. It is thus untimely. As a result, the Court has no option but to retain jurisdiction over the action. (lc). Modified on 10/28/2015 (lc).

Date Filed

Document Text

May 16, 2017

Filing 76 JUDGMENT by Judge William D. Keller: Judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiffs Jose A. Ramirez, Jose Alba, Jose Peraza, Mario Alba and Mauricio Rodriguez, and against defendant Pacer Cartage, Inc., also known as XPO Cartage, Inc. f/k/a Pac er Cartage, Inc. (See Judgment for further details) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall serve, by United States mail or by telefax or by email, copies of this Judgment on counsel for the defendant in this matter. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (yl)

October 27, 2015

Filing 14 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO REMAND by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Despite this obviously improper removal, the Court has determined that it lacks the power to remand this case. The Court has no authority to sua sponte remand an action for procedural defects in removal. Moreover, a request to remand the case must be made within thirty days of removal. It is thus untimely. As a result, the Court has no option but to retain jurisdiction over the action. (lc). Modified on 10/28/2015 (lc).

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 this case: Jose A. Ramirez v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Pacer Cartage, Inc.
Represented By:	Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jose Angel Ramirez
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?