Vartan Yaralian v. James Fastovsky et al
| Vartan Yaralian |
| Does, James Fastovsky and K.G. Holdings, Inc. |
| 2:2015cv08989 |
| November 18, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F. Eick |
| George H. King |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
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
28
JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King: Pursuant to the Court's November 9, 2016 Order, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall take nothing by this Complaint. (bm)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge George H. King. On March 29, 2016, we ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) within fourteen days thereof and for Defendant to file a response twenty-one days thereafter. (Dkt. 23.) The deadline to file the SAC has well passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with our Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, within fourteen days hereof, why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs failure to diligentl y prosecute and failure to comply with our Order. Failure to timely and adequately show cause as required herein SHALL be deemedPlaintiffs abandonment of this action, and this action will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with our Order. (pso)
|
|
Filing
20
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 10) by Judge George H. King finding as moot 10 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as to the preempted part of the promissory estoppel cause of action only. We now grant Plaintiff leave to replead this completely preempted claim as an appropriate one under ERISA. Should Plaintiff elect to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), he SHALL do so within 30 days hereof in full compliance with this Order. If Plaintiff files a SAC, Fastovksy SHALL respond to it within 30 days thereafter. We address the remaining state law claims in our concurrently filed Order to Show Cause Re: Supplemental Jurisdiction ("OSC"). Fastovsky has filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, (Dkt. 17), which is set for hearing on February 29, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. To the extent the motion to dismiss concerns the completely preempted aspect of the promissory estoppel cause of action, it is DENIED as moot. To the extent the motion concerns the remaining state law claims, it is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and STAYED pending the response to theOSC. (bm)
|
|
Filing
18
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King taking under submission 10 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: On the court's own motion, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 10 , noticed for hearing on JANUARY 25, 2016, is TAKEN OFF C ALENDAR and will be taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument on that date pursuant to Local Rule 7-15. No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated. (bm)
|
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
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.
