Chatman v. WeDriveU, Inc
| Precious Chatman |
| WEDRIVEU, INC. and WeDriveU, Inc |
| 3:2022cv04849 |
| August 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| William H Orrick |
| Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 24
Order by Judge William H. Orrick granting #21 Motion for Pro Hac Vice by Jean Edmonds. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2022)
|
|
Filing 23
REPLY (re #18 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ) filed byWeDriveU, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Request for Judicial Notice)(Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 10/5/2022)
|
|
Filing 22
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #18 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ) filed byPrecious Chatman. (LeVu, Christine) (Filed on 9/28/2022)
|
|
Filing 21
MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Jean Edmonds ( Filing fee $ 317, receipt number ACANDC-17552533.) filed by WeDriveU, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing for Jean Edmonds)(Edmonds, Jean) (Filed on 9/20/2022)
|
|
Filing 20
NOTICE by Precious Chatman of Case Management Conference Order (LeVu, Christine) (Filed on 9/20/2022)
|
|
Filing 19
Request for Judicial Notice re #18 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed byWeDriveU, Inc. (Related document(s) #18 ) (Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 9/14/2022)
|
|
Filing 18
MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by WeDriveU, Inc. Motion Hearing set for 10/26/2022 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Responses due by 9/28/2022. Replies due by 10/5/2022. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, #2 Proposed Order)(Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 9/14/2022)
|
|
Filing 17
Related Case Order by Judge William H. Orrick granting #7 Administrative Motion. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2022)
|
|
Filing 16
CASE MANAGEMENT C0NFERENCE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 12/13/2022 02:00 PM via Videoconference. Case Management Statement due by 12/6/2022. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/13/2022. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2022)
|
|
Filing 15
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge William H. Orrick for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by Clerk on 9/6/2022. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(ark, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2022)
|
|
Filing 14
CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (ejk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2022)
|
|
Filing 13
CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by WeDriveU, Inc.. (Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 9/6/2022)
|
|
Filing 12
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #7 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should be Related ) filed byPrecious Chatman. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order DENYING DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED)(LeVu, Christine) (Filed on 9/2/2022)
|
|
Filing 11
NOTICE of Appearance by Victoria Bree Rivapalacio (Rivapalacio, Victoria) (Filed on 9/2/2022)
|
|
Filing 10
NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Gavin Ronan (Ronan, Andrew) (Filed on 9/2/2022)
|
|
Filing 9
NOTICE of Appearance by Christine T. LeVu (LeVu, Christine) (Filed on 9/2/2022)
|
|
Filing 8
CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiffs/Defendants shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. Consent/Declination due by 9/8/2022. (ejk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2022)
|
|
Filing 7
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should be Related filed by WeDriveU, Inc. Responses due by 9/6/2022. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Christopher Braham, #2 Proposed Order)(Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 9/1/2022)
|
|
Filing 6
CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING: Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/1/2022 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco - Videoconference Only. Case Management Statement due by 11/23/2022. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at #https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lb General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: #https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. (ejk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2022)
|
|
Filing 5
Corporate Disclosure Statement by WeDriveU, Inc identifying Corporate Parent National Express Group Holdings Limited for WeDriveU, Inc. re #1 Notice of Removal, (Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 8/25/2022)
|
|
Filing 4
Certificate of Interested Entities by WeDriveU, Inc re #1 Notice of Removal, (Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 8/25/2022)
|
|
Filing 3
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case may fall within the Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. See #General Order 71. Parties and Counsel are directed to review General Order 71 to determine whether it applies to this case, and to comply with that General Order if applicable. Case Management Statement due by 11/24/20 22. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/1/2022 11:00 AM. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2022)
|
|
Filing 2
Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 9/8/2022. (jlg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2022)
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Mateo Superior Court. Their case number is 22-CIV-02197. (Filing fee $402 receipt number ACANDC-17475082). Filed by WeDriveU, Inc (Attachments: #1 * copy of Complaint and Answer attached - Exhibit A-C to Removal, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Braham, Christopher) (Filed on 8/24/2022) Modified on 8/25/2022 (mcl, COURT STAFF).
|
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 Northern 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.
