Kenneth Boyman v. Disney Enterprises Inc. et al
Kenneth Boyman |
Disney Enterprises Inc. and Google |
2:2018cv10198 |
December 7, 2018 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Andre Birotte |
Dean D Pregerson |
Autumn D Spaeth |
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
18 U.S.C. § 1961 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth re REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Declaration in Support #3 . Proposed Order forwarded to the District Judge for approval.(kh) |
|
Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dean D. Pregerson and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. (et) |
Filing 3 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Boyman. (et) |
Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Boyman. (et) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT FOR RICO CRIMES CAPITOL CRIMES RACKEETERING FRAUD AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS against Defendants Disney Enterprises Inc., Google. Case assigned to Judge Dean D. Pregerson for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Boyman. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons) (et) |
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.