Anthony M DeVaughn v. County of Los Angeles
| Anthony M DeVaughn |
| County of Los Angeles |
| 2:2008cv01461 |
| February 29, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Riverside |
| Unassigned |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Forma Pauperis Denial |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
330
JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr: IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (jm)
|
|
Filing
300
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. THE COURT ORDERS PLAINTIFF ANTHONY M. DEVAUGHN TO SHOW CAUSE, IN WRITING, WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR A LESSER SANCTION IMPOSED UPON HIM FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A DISCOVERY ORDER. The Court VACATES the October 23, 2018 hearing on the Motion. The COR Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's showing within five court days of their receipt of plaintiff's showing. (jm)
|
|
Filing
271
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. The Court ORDERS plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 10 days of the date of this order, why the action should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to comply with his discovery obligations and failure to prosecute his action by making himself available for deposition. (see order for details) (hr)
|
|
Filing
240
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING LIFTING OF STAY by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/30/2017: In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS defendants to show cause in writing, within 10 days of the date of this order, why the stay herein should not be lifted. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jm)
|
|
Filing
234
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Pursuant to the Court's order staying these proceedings; defendants were required to file their next status report by June 26, 2017. As of the date of this order, defendants have failed to file that status report. IT IS THEREFORE IS ORDERED that defendants show cause in writing within15 days of the date of this order why the stay should not be lifted. (sbou)
|
|
Filing
224
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. IT IS THEREFORE IS ORDERED that defendants show cause in writing within 15 days of the date of this order why the stay should not be lifted. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/3/2015. (jm)
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Audrey B. Collins: IT IS ORDERED that defendant Option One is dismissed with prejudice as to plaintiff's § 1983 claims and without prejudice as to plaintiff's state law claims. (jm)
|
|
Filing
170
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE STATUS REPORTS by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm: The next status report was due November 23, 2011. As of the date of this order, defendants have not filed a status report or requested an extension of time. Defendants are ordered to show cause, within 15 days of the date of this order, why they should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the Court's order. An updated status report will be a sufficient response to the Order to Show Cause. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 12/22/2011. (jm)
|
|
Filing
146
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/22/2011. ORDER RE RESPONSE BY OPTION ONE : Option One was ordered to file a response to the amended complaint within 30 days. 30 days having passed and defendant Option One not having filed any response to the amended complaint, defendant Option One is ordered to show cause within 30 days of the date of this order why its default should not be entered. (jm)
|
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
| Search for this case: Anthony M DeVaughn v. County of Los Angeles | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Anthony M DeVaughn | |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: County of Los Angeles | |
| 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.
