Martin Reiner v. Bryan Leifer et al
| Martin Reiner |
| John Haubrich Jr, John Barber, Susan Kaplan, Craig Holden, Lewis, Bisgaard & Smith, Ronnie Caplane, Manuel Graiwer, Boris Vernik, Steve Belilove, Rick Dietrich, Richard Shapiro, Steven Yee, Rosely George, Bryan Leifer, Gary Kaplan, James Robbins, Does 1 to 10, inclusive and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP |
| 2:2018cv10186 |
| December 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Karen E Scott |
| Stephen V Wilson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Terminated Case, #12 #13 by Clerk of Court. The document is stricken. (mrgo) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Terminated Case, #12 #13 . The following error(s) was/were found: Case is closed. Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (mrgo) |
| Filing 13 [DOCUMENT STRICKEN PER DOC. NO. 15] First NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration re Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,, Terminated Case, #12 filed by Plaintiff Martin Reiner. Motion set for hearing on 2/4/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (Weston, Christopher) Modified on 1/23/2019 (mrgo). |
Filing 12
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 10 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Because Plaintiff's lawsuit is within the scope of Judge King's vexatious litigant order and because Plaintiff did not obtain approval to file his complaint, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint for failing to comply with Judge King's order. (See document for details) (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (mrgo)
|
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Martin Reinerto Text Only Scheduling Notice,, 10 Response to OSC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(Weston, Christopher) |
| Filing 10 IN CHAMBERS ONLY TEXT-ONLY ENTRY by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: The Court orders the plaintiff to show cause, in writing, no later than January 8, 2019, why this case should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the order 66 that issued in 2:15-cv-07577-GHK-KES. The defendant was ordered "to seek approval from the Chief Judge of this Court prior to any filing in this Court that relates to claims stemming from or relating to his involvement in matters identified on pages 23-26 of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on November 25, 2015" 60 . THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (pc) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
|
Filing 9
NEW CASE ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. (pc)
|
| Filing 8 Certification and Notice of Interested Parties with filing fee previously paid ($400 paid on 12/07/2018,, filed by Plaintiff Martin Reiner.(Weston, Christopher) |
| Filing 7 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants John Barber, Steve Belilove, Ronnie Caplane, Rick Dietrich, Rosely George, Manuel Graiwer, John Haubrich Jr, Craig Holden, Gary Kaplan, Susan Kaplan, Bryan Leifer, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, James Robbins, Richard Shapiro, Boris Vernik, Steven Yee. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: MISC - Other Miscellaneous Case #2 , MISC - Other Miscellaneous Case #3 , Complaint (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. Other error(s) with document(s): Summons and Case Civil Cover Sheet were e-filed under the wrong event category. No further action is required for the Civil Cover Sheet and for the Summons unless the Court so directs. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (car) |
| Filing 3 [CIVIL COVER SHEET] filed as Case Cover Sheet with filing fee previously paid ($400 paid on 12/07/2018, receipt number 26E00H60), filed by Plaintiff Martin Reiner.(Weston, Christopher) Modified on 12/11/2018 (car). |
| Filing 2 [Request for Clerk to Issue Summons] filed as Summons with filing fee previously paid ($400 paid on 12/07/2018, receipt number 26E00H60), filed by plaintiff Martin Reiner.(Weston, Christopher) Modified on 12/11/2018 (car). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-22858802 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Martin Reiner. (Attorney Christopher G Weston added to party Martin Reiner(pty:bkmov))(Weston, Christopher) |
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.
