Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise v. Jia Yueting
Petitioner: Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise
Respondent: Jia Yueting
Case Number: 2:2018cv07723
Filed: September 5, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: S James Otero
Referring Judge: Jean P Rosenbluth
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0009
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 26, 2018 Filing 23 First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Quash Summons re: Petition (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Specially Appearing Respondent Jia Yueting. Motion set for hearing on 11/26/2018 at 10:00 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Daniel Scott Schecter, #2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Daniel Scott Schecter, #3 Declaration Jose Perales, #4 Proposed Order) (Schecter, Daniel)
October 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge S. James Otero. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/7/2019. Scheduling Conference set for 1/28/2019 at 08:30 AM before Judge S. James Otero. (vcr)
October 12, 2018 Filing 21 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Jia Yueting answer now due 10/26/2018, filed by Specially Appearing Respondent Jia Yueting.(Schecter, Daniel)
October 12, 2018 Filing 20 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties filed by Specially Appearing Respondent Jia Yueting, identifying Leview Holding (Beijing) Limited. (Attorney Daniel Scott Schecter added to party Jia Yueting(pty:res))(Schecter, Daniel)
October 11, 2018 Filing 19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise, upon Defendant Jia Yueting served on 9/22/2018, answer due 10/15/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jose Perales, person in charge, in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and by also mailing a copy.Original Summons returned. (Park, Jae)
September 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney William Thomas O'Brien to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise and designating Jae K Park as local counsel #16 by Judge S. James Otero (lc)
September 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Daniel Gilbert Morris to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise and designating Jae K Park as local counsel #15 by Judge S. James Otero (lc)
September 24, 2018 Filing 16 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney William Thomas O'Brien to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973-22472809) filed by plaintiff Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Park, Jae)
September 24, 2018 Filing 15 APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Daniel Gilbert Morris to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise (Pro Hac Vice Fee - $400 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973-22472610) filed by plaintiff Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Park, Jae)
September 13, 2018 Filing 14 RESPONSE filed by Pro Hac Vice attorney William T. O'Brien on behalf of Petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise. RE: Notice of Filing Fee Due. PHV fee N/A. I am awaiting the necessary certificates of good standing and will file the pro hac vice applications as soon as I receive them from all of the state bars where I am admitted. (lt)
September 13, 2018 Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Pro Hac Vice attorney on behalf of Petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise. RE: Notice of Filing Fee Due. PHV fee N/A. I am awaiting the necessary certificates of good standing and will file the pro hac applications as soon as I receive them from all of the state bars where I am admitted. (lt)
September 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 12 INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge S. James Otero. (smo)
September 6, 2018 Filing 11 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Petition (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): Attachments 1 Civil Cover Sheet, 2 Declaration of Jinshu Zhang, 4 Notice of Interested Parties are attached to the Petition. Each of these documents should have been filed and entered separately under its correct event/relief. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 10 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Deficiency in Attorney Case Opening - optional html form, #9 . Document number 9 due to clerical error. NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Petition (Attorney Civil Case Opening) was issued in error by the docket clerk. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 9 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Petition (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Petition (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #2 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s): Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is Summons Request. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Petition (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Jia Yueting. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 6 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Daniel Morris. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 5 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney William T O Brien. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge S. James Otero and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (ghap)
September 6, 2018 Filing 2 SUMMONS REQUEST-FILED as PETITION Summons In A Civil Action with filing fee previously paid ($400.00 paid on 09/05/2018, receipt number 0973-22370473), filed by petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise.(Park, Jae) Modified on 9/6/2018 (ghap).
September 5, 2018 Filing 1 PETITION to Recognize and Enforce A Foreign Arbitral Award Receipt No: 0973-22370473 - Fee: $400, filed by Petitioner Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Declaration of Jinshu Zhang, #3 Proposed Order, #4 Rule 7.1 Notice of Interested Parties) (Attorney Jae Kyun Park added to party Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise(pty:pet))(Park, Jae)

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: Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise v. Jia Yueting
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Shanghai Qichengyueming Investment Partnership Enterprise
Represented By: Jae Kyun Park
Represented By: William Thomas O'Brien
Represented By: Jinshu Zhang
Represented By: Daniel Gilbert Morris
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 ]
Respondent: Jia Yueting
Represented By: Daniel Scott Schecter
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?