Sami Ammari v. City of Los Angeles

Plaintiff:	Sami Ammari
Defendant:	City of Los Angeles
Case Number:	2:2012cv04644
Filed:	May 29, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Fernando M. Olguin
Presiding Judge:	Otis D Wright
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
December 20, 2013	Filing 48 JUDGMENT for DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES and against PLAINTIFF SAMI AMMARI; The Clerk of Court shall close this case by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
August 28, 2012	Filing 20 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONSOLIDATION by Judge Otis D Wright, II: The Court is in receipt of the parties Rule 26(f) Joint Report. The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 42(a) with Lone Star Security andVideo, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:11-cv-2113-ODW(FMOx) (C.D. Cal. filedMarch 11, 2011). The issues, parties, and attorneys are the same in both caseswith the exception of the plaintiffs identities. Yet , the Court believe that the plaintiffs in the two cases are related. The parties have 14 days to comply with this order in writing; no hearing is required.Further, the California Attorney General did not intervene in this case by theAugust 24, 2012 deadline. Accordingly, the STAY IS HEREBY LIFTED. (lc)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 20, 2013

Filing 48 JUDGMENT for DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES and against PLAINTIFF SAMI AMMARI; The Clerk of Court shall close this case by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)

August 28, 2012

Filing 20 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONSOLIDATION by Judge Otis D Wright, II: The Court is in receipt of the parties Rule 26(f) Joint Report. The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 42(a) with Lone Star Security andVideo, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:11-cv-2113-ODW(FMOx) (C.D. Cal. filedMarch 11, 2011). The issues, parties, and attorneys are the same in both caseswith the exception of the plaintiffs identities. Yet , the Court believe that the plaintiffs in the two cases are related. The parties have 14 days to comply with this order in writing; no hearing is required.Further, the California Attorney General did not intervene in this case by theAugust 24, 2012 deadline. Accordingly, the STAY IS HEREBY LIFTED. (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: Sami Ammari v. City 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: Sami Ammari
Represented By:	George M Wallace, 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 ]
Defendant: City of Los Angeles
Represented By:	Kimberly Anne Erickson
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?