David Delman v. GEP Cencast, LLC et al
| David Delman |
| Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Television, GEP Cencast, LLC, Touchstone Television Productions, LLC, DOES and Joseph Scudiero, Esq. |
| 2:2009cv02721 |
| April 20, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Cooper |
| Walsh |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
156
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 153 Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration of March 5, 2010 Order: The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that an order extending the time for filing a notice of appeal in this action is warranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration of the Courts March 5, 2010 order. (see document for further details) (bm)
|
|
Filing
152
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 150 , 151 Plaintiff's Requests to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal: On February 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Request for Accommodation by Person with Disability to (1) Extend Time to File an Appeal Pursuant to FRAP, Rule 4(a)(5)." See Dkt # 150. On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Request for Accommodation by Disabled Individual for Order to Be Made by 3/06/10 Pursuant to FRAP 4(a)(5)." See Dkt # 15 1. While the Court discerns that by these "requests" Plaintiff seeks an order extending the time to file a notice of appeal of the Court's February 8, 2010 order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss and to strike, Plaintiff does not explain why such an order is warranted here. Nor does Plaintiff indicate the amount of additional time sought. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's requests. (bm)
|
|
Filing
92
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denying 80 Request for Order; denying 81 Ex Parte Application to Continue; denying Plaintiff's ex parte application for continuation of the motions to dismiss 81 , Plaintiff's ac commodation request 80 , and Plaintiffs ex parte application for oral argument [filed 10/19/09]: For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's ex parte application for, inter alia, continuation of the motions to dismiss, Plaintiff 9;s accommodation request, and Plaintiff's ex parte application for oral argument. Furthermore, Plaintiff is directed to take note of the following language from this Court's Standing Order: Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinar y relief and should be used with discretion. Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of ex parte applications. See Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Standing Order 8:22-9:1. Plaintiff should consider this a warning against further misuse of ex parte procedure. (see document for further details) (bm)
|
|
Filing
12
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Florence-Marie Cooper: The Court, sua sponte, ORDERS that counsel for plaintiff show cause in writing on or before September 4, 2009, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.The Court will consider the filing of the following, on or before the above date, as an appropriate response to this Order to Show Cause: -proof of service of summons and complaint.Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Feder al Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.11, oral argument will not be heard in this matter unless so ordered by the Court. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of counsel's response. Failure to respond to the Court's order may result in the dismissal of the action. (ama)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
