Mendoza v. Huerta et al
| Jeannie Mendoza |
| Michael Soto, Rosario Huerta and Ilian Lopez |
| 4:2018cv00565 |
| November 26, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Jennifer G Zipps |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 22, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 BILL OF COSTS by Rosario Huerta, Ilian Lopez, Michael Soto. (Hall, N) |
| Filing 7 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's Order filed December 7, 2018, judgment of dismissal is entered. Plaintiff to take nothing, and the complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice. (KEP) |
Filing 6
ORDER that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of filing this Order to file an Amended Complaint. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment of dismissal, without prejudice, without further notice to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the filing date of this Order (see attached Order for complete details). Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 12/4/2018. (MFR)
|
| Filing 5 ANSWER to #1 Notice of Removal with Jury Demand by Rosario Huerta, Ilian Lopez, Michael Soto. (Attachments: #1 Demand for Jury Trial)(Hall, N) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT re informational documents attached: (1) Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, (2) Federal Court Self-Service Clinic Flyer, (3) Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, and (4) Notice and Request re Electronic Noticing. (MFR) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and this case is subject to that pilot. The key features and deadlines are set forth in the attached Notice which includes General Order 17-08. Also attached is a checklist for use by the parties. All parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the General Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the General Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the attached documents (Notice to Parties, including General Order 17-08 and MIDP Checklist) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (MFR) |
| Filing 2 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-16233479. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Jennifer G Zipps. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-18-0565-TUC-JGZ. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (MFR) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Santa Cruz County Superior Court, case number S1200CV201800186. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-16233479 filed by Ilian Lopez, Michael Soto, Rosario Huerta. (Hall, N) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit A)(MFR) |
| ***STATE COURT RECORD RECEIVED***SERVICE EXECUTED : Certificate of Service re: Summons and Complaint, First Amended Complaint for Signature, and Certificae of Compulsory Arbitration upon Lillian Lopez on 7/25/2018, Mike Soto and Rosario Huerta on 7/23/2018 (Originals filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court on 8/1/2018). (MFR) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. |
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 Arizona 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.
