Arturo Acosta v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al
| Arturo Acosta |
| DOES and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company |
| 2:2016cv07776 |
| October 19, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F. Eick |
| Dolly M. Gee |
| 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
23
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. In light of the parties' stipulation for dismissal filed on August 1, 2017 22 , the Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party shall bear his or its own costs and fees. All scheduled dates and deadlines are VACATED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)
|
|
Filing
11
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before December 19, 2016 why this action should not be dismiss ed for lack of prosecution. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. This action will be dismissed if the above-mentioned document(s) are not filed bythe date indicated above. (iv)
|
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.
