Kyle Atkins v. Ford Motor Company et al
| Kyle Atkins |
| Ford Motor Company and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 2:2018cv04085 |
| May 16, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L Abrams |
| Percy Anderson |
| Contract Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Breach of Contract |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 29, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 25 MANDATE of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #12 , CCA # 18-55809. The judgment of this Court, entered May 07, 2020, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. [See USCA Memorandum #24 DISMISSED] (mat) |
| Filing 24 MEMORANDUM from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #12 filed by Ford Motor Company. CCA # 18-55809. DISMISSED. (mrgo) |
| Filing 23 REFUND OF $505.00 made payable on 11/20/2018 to James Clayton for payment made on 10/18/2018 Re: APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid Re: Pay Filing Fee #22 . (rdj) |
| Filing 22 APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid Re: Pay Filing Fee filed by Non-party DOES. (Clayton, James) |
| FILING FEE PAID for Notice of Appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Receipt No. 0973-22598313 for $505 filing fee. (Clayton, James) |
Filing 21
ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #12 filed by Ford Motor Company. CCA # 18-55809. The consolidated opening brief and excerpts of record are due November 26, 2018; the consolidated answering brief is due December 26, 2018; and the optional consolidated reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the consolidated answering brief. (mrgo)
|
|
Filing 20
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court therefore discharges its order to show cause why LeClairRyan and Schnader Harrison should not be sanctioned without prejudice to whatever determination the MDL Judge may make in MDL No. 2814. (See document for details) (mrgo)
|
| Filing 19 DECLARATION of JEFFREY P. WILSON re Response #16 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, #14 filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Dye, Stephen) |
| Filing 18 DECLARATION of CHARLES F. HARLOW re Response #16 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, #14 filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Dye, Stephen) |
| Filing 17 DECLARATION of STEPHEN H. DYE re Response #16 , Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, #14 filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12)(Dye, Stephen) |
| Filing 16 RESPONSE filed by Defendant Ford Motor Companyto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, #14 [RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE] (Dye, Stephen) |
| Filing 15 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 18-55809 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #12 as to Defendant Ford Motor Company. (lom) |
|
Filing 14
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. On May 31, this Court issued an order to show cause to Ford Motor Company's Counsel, LeClair Ryan LLP and Schnader Harrison, Segal and Lewis, LLP. On June 14, 2018, despite the fact that the notices of removals which gave rise to the order to show were filed individually by LeClair Ryan LLP and Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis, LLP, the Court received a Joint Response. Each firm was to file its own individual response to the OSC accounting for the firm's conduct. Accordingly, the Joint Response filed on June 14, is ordered stricken. Each firm's response to the May 31 order to show cause shall be filed by no later than June 27, 2018. Additionally, Counsel shall attach to its response any supporting declarations and documents. Counsel shall file a privilege log that complies with Dole v. Milonas, 889 F.2d 885, 888 n. 3, 890 (9th Cir. 1989) for any documents for which a privilege is asserted. (mrgo)
|
| Filing 13 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #12 . (Dye, Stephen) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. Appeal of Order to Remand Case to State Court #9 . (Appeal Fee - $505 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973-21948521.) (Dye, Stephen) |
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court provides Ford's counsel with notice that the monetary sanctions the Court may consider imposing are up to $10,000 for each and every instance and for each and every attorney listed on the relevant pleadings in which Ford failed to properly identify an identical case where Ford filed a successive Notice of Removal, whether the initial remand order was issued by this Court or any other Court in the Central District. Counsel's response to this order to show cause shall be filed by no later than June 14, 2018. Ford's counsel's response to this order to show cause shall not exceed fifteen pages. (See document for further details) (mrgo)
|
| Filing 10 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Los Angeles County Superior Court. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Los Angeles County Superior Court. (mrgo) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC702962 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (PA)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (jtil) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Kyle Atkins in Los Angeles Superior Court on 4/13/2018, attached as Exhibit A. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 First EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Determination of Inclusion Multidistrict Litigation Pending in this District (MDL No. 2814) filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Harlow, Charles) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. Related Case(s): MDL No. 2814 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Transfer Order, #2 Exhibit B - Original Complaint, #3 Exhibit C - CTO-1, #4 Exhibit D - CTO-2, #5 Exhibit E - CTO-3, #6 Exhibit F - JPML Amended POS)(Harlow, Charles) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, (Harlow, Charles) |
| Filing 3 DECLARATION of Stephen H. Dye re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Harlow, Charles) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Harlow, Charles) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, case number BC702962 Receipt No: 0973-21759851 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Original Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Original Service of Process) (Attorney Charles Frederick Harlow added to party Ford Motor Company(pty:dft))(Harlow, Charles) |
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 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.
