Carol A. Richens et al v. Ford Motor Company et al
Carol A. Richens and Gary T. Richens |
Ford Motor Company, McCoy Mills Ford, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive |
2:2019cv02490 |
April 2, 2019 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Philip S Gutierrez |
Suzanne H Segal |
Contract Product Liability |
28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 17 Receipt of acknowledgment letter from Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Case No. 19STCV06716. (bm) |
Filing 16 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, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (bm) |
Filing 15 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order GRANTING Plaintiffs' motion to remand by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granting #11 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court: For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to remand is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 19STCV06716. (see document for further details) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (bm) |
Filing 14 REPLY In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court #11 filed by Plaintiffs Carol A. Richens, Gary T. Richens. (Nguyen, Anh) |
Filing 13 DECLARATION of Charles F. Harlow re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) #12 filed by Defendants Ford Motor Company, McCoy Mills Ford. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6)(Harlow, Charles) |
Filing 12 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court #11 filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company. (Harlow, Charles) |
Filing 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court filed by Plaintiffs Carol A. Richens, Gary T. Richens. Motion set for hearing on 6/24/2019 at 01:30 PM before Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum, #2 Declaration of Anh Nguyen, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Proposed Order) (Nguyen, Anh) |
Filing 10 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Order re: untimely removal by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Motions to remand based on procedural objections to a removal must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Accordingly, if Plaintiffs Carol A. Richens and Gary T. Richens intend to move to remand based on untimeliness, they must do so no later than tomorrow, May 2, 2019, or this potential defect in the removal is waived. (see document for further details) (bm) |
Filing 9 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (wm) |
Filing 8 STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ji) |
Filing 7 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Anh X Nguyen counsel for Plaintiffs Carol A. Richens, Gary T. Richens. Adding Anh Nguyen as counsel of record for CAROL A. RICHENS for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff CAROL A. RICHENS. (Attorney Anh X Nguyen added to party Carol A. Richens(pty:pla), Attorney Anh X Nguyen added to party Gary T. Richens(pty:pla))(Nguyen, Anh) |
Filing 6 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT of MJDAP case from Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez for all further proceedings. Any discovery matters that may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judges 2:19-cv-02490 PSG(SSx). (rn) |
Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Magistrate Judge Direct Assignment Program. This case has been randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. (Attachments: #1 CV-11C) (esa) |
CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Ford Motor Company, McCoy Mills Ford, Jury Demand, filed by plaintiffs Carol A. Richens, Gary T. Richens. (Filed in state court 2/27/19, submitted as document 1, attachment 1) (esa) |
COPY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS TRANSMITTAL executed by Plaintiffs Carol A. Richens, Gary T. Richens, upon Defendant Ford Motor Company served on 3/1/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon CT Corporation System, Agent for Process of Service by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity. Original Summons NOT returned. (non-conformed, submitted as document 1, attachment 1) (esa) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant McCoy Mills Ford, identifying McCoy & Mills. (Harlow, Charles) |
Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company, identifying State Street Corporation, Evercore Trust Company, N.A., Black Rock, Inc., and The Vanguard Group. (Harlow, Charles) |
Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants Ford Motor Company, McCoy Mills Ford. (Harlow, Charles) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, case number 19STCV06716 Receipt No: 0973-23485722 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendants McCoy Mills Ford, Ford Motor Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-State Pleadings, #2 Exhibit B-Ford's 2017 10-K Filing Excerpt, #3 Declaration of Counsel In Support of Removal) (Attorney Charles Frederick Harlow added to party Ford Motor Company(pty:dft), Attorney Charles Frederick Harlow added to party McCoy Mills Ford(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.