Lien Nghiem v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc.
Plaintiff: Nghiem Lien and Lien Nghiem
Defendant: Luxottica Retail North America Inc., Does 1 through 40 and Luxottica Retail North America Inc. an Ohio corporation doing business as Lens Crafters
Case Number: 2:2018cv08585
Filed: October 5, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: R Gary Klausner
Referring Judge: Gail J Standish
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 27, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 27, 2018 Filing 16 Receipt of Order of Remand filed. (mrgo)
December 6, 2018 Filing 15 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 - Central District. Case number: BC720373. (jp)
December 4, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 14 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Remanding Action to State Court by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has not satisfied its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000. In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)
October 23, 2018 Filing 13 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by plaintiff Lien Nghiem.. (Mueller, Troy)
October 23, 2018 Filing 12 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Lien Nghiem, identifying Lien Nghiem; Luxottica Retail North America Inc. dba Lens Crafters. (Mueller, Troy)
October 14, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge R. Gary Klausner. A Scheduling Conference has been placed on calendar for February 4, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. The Conference will be held pursuant to F.R.Civ. P. 16(b). Trial counsel must be present and there are no telephonic appearances. Counsel are ordered to file a joint statement providing a brief factual summary of the case, including the claims being asserted. The parties are reminded of their obligations to disclose information and confer on a discovery plan not later than 21 days prior to the scheduling conference, and to file a joint statement with the Court not later than 14 days after they confer, as required by F.R. Civ.P. 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. Failure to comply may lead to the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to give notice of the scheduling conference to each party that makes an initial appearance in the action after this date. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/28/2019. (sw)
October 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 10 STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge R. Gary Klausner. (sw)
October 9, 2018 Filing 9 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc., re Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 , Corporate Disclosure Statement #5 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, #1 , Declaration #2 , Notice of Related Case(s) #4 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #6 served on October 5, 2018. (Becerra, James)
October 9, 2018 Filing 8 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jp)
October 9, 2018 Filing 7 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge R. Gary Klausner and Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. (jp)
October 5, 2018 CONFORMED COPY OF ORIGINAL FILED PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Lien Nghiem, upon Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc., dba Lens Crafters, an Ohio corporation served on 9/6/2018, answer due 9/27/2018. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon CT Corporation Systems C/O Carlos Paz - Registered Agent for Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 9/10/2018 SUBMITTED ATTACHMENT NO. 4 OF EXHIBIT C TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ). (jp)
October 5, 2018 CONFORMED COPY OF ORIGINAL FILED COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff Lien Nghiem against defendants Luxottica Retail North America Inc., Does 1 through 40. Jury Demand, filed by Plaintiffs Pedro M. Melendrez, Angelica M. Mata. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 08/31/2018 SUBMITTED ATTACHMENT NO. 2 OF EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ). (jp)
October 5, 2018 Filing 6 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc.. (Becerra, James)
October 5, 2018 Filing 5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc. identifying Luxottica Group S.P.A. as Corporate Parent. (Becerra, James)
October 5, 2018 Filing 4 NOTICE of Related Case(s) filed by Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc.. (Becerra, James)
October 5, 2018 Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc., identifying Lien Nghiem; Luxottica Retail North America Inc.; Luxottica Group S.P.A.; Twin City Fire Insurance Company. (Becerra, James)
October 5, 2018 Filing 2 DECLARATION of Deborah Beil re Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening),, #1 filed by Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc.. (Becerra, James)
October 5, 2018 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number BC720373 Receipt No: 0973-22534954 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of James A. Becerra in Support of Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit A in Support of Notice of Removal, #3 Exhibit B in Support of Notice of Removal, #4 Exhibit C in Support of Notice of Removal, #5 Exhibit D in Support of Notice of Removal) (Attorney James Becerra added to party Luxottica Retail North America Inc.(pty:dft))(Becerra, James)

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: Lien Nghiem v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Luxottica Retail North America Inc.
Represented By: James Becerra
Represented By: Maggy Mokhles Athanasious
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: Does 1 through 40
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: Luxottica Retail North America Inc. an Ohio corporation doing business as Lens Crafters
Represented By: James Becerra
Represented By: Maggy Mokhles Athanasious
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 ]
Plaintiff: Nghiem Lien
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 ]
Plaintiff: Lien Nghiem
Represented By: Payam Kashani
Represented By: Troy M Mueller
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?