Esperanza Lopez Manzo v. Energizer Holdings, Inc. et al
| Esperanza Lopez Manzo |
| Energizer, LLC, Energizer Holdings, Inc., Energizer Manufacturing, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive |
| 2:2019cv02844 |
| April 12, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dolly M Gee |
| Alka Sagar |
| Prop. Damage Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint #14 presently scheduled for hearing on June 28, 2019, is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION and the hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 16 REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case pursuant to F.R.C.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and by Energizer Holdings, Inc. in the alternative and principally pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) #14 (Dismiss FAC at ECF Dkt. No. 12) filed by Defendants Energizer Holdings, Inc., Energizer Manufacturing, Inc., Energizer, LLC. (Herrington, Robert) |
| Filing 15 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case pursuant to F.R.C.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and by Energizer Holdings, Inc. in the alternative and principally pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) #14 filed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Andrew J. Sokolowski in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, #2 Exhibit A)(Sokolowski, Andrew) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case pursuant to F.R.C.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and by Energizer Holdings, Inc. in the alternative and principally pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) filed by Defendant Energizer Holdings, Inc., Energizer Manufacturing, Inc., Energizer, LLC. Motion set for hearing on 6/28/2019 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Kathryn A. Dugan, #2 Proposed Order) (Herrington, Robert) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENT(S) by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Stipulation to File Amended Complaint filed 5/15/2019 #11 , for the following reasons: For the same reasons listed in Court Order dated 5/13/2019 (Doc. No. 10). Further noncompliance to the Local Rules may result in monetary sanctions. (gk)
|
| Filing 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants All Defendants amending Complaint - (Discovery),, filed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo(Sokolowski, Andrew) |
| Filing 11 * STRICKEN * STIPULATION to Amend filed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint)(Sokolowski, Andrew) ** DOCUMENT STRICKEN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF 5/16/2019 #13 ** Modified on 5/17/2019 (gk). |
|
Filing 10
ORDER TO STRIKE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENT(S) by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The following document(s) be STRICKEN for failure to comply with the Local Rules, General Order and/or the Courts Case Management Order: Stipulation to File Amended Complaint filed 5/10/2019 #9 , for the following reasons: Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. (gk)
|
| Filing 9 * STRICKEN * STIPULATION to Amend filed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo.(Sokolowski, Andrew) ** DOCUMENT STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 5/13/2019 #10 ** Modified on 5/14/2019 (gk). |
| Filing 8 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Energizer, LLC answer now due 5/17/2019; Energizer Manufacturing, Inc. answer now due 5/17/2019; Energizer Holdings, Inc. answer now due 5/17/2019, re Complaint - (Discovery), filed by Defendants Energizer, LLC; Energizer Manufacturing, Inc.; Energizer Holdings, Inc..(Herrington, Robert) |
|
Filing 7
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (kti)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Energizer Holdings, Inc., Energizer Manufacturing, Inc., Energizer, LLC. Jury Demanded., filed by plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 2/26/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A) (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo, upon Defendant Energizer, LLC served on 3/13/2019, answer due 4/3/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Gabriela Sanchez-CT-Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 3/20/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A PAGE 041) (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo, upon Defendant Energizer Manufacturing, Inc. served on 3/13/2019, answer due 4/3/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Gabriela Sanchez-CT-Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 3/20/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A PAGE 042) (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo, upon Defendant Energizer Holdings, Inc. served on 3/15/2019, answer due 4/5/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon CT Corporation System-Bonnie Love- Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 3/26/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A PAGE 043) (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Esperanza Lopez Manzo, upon Defendant Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Registered Agent: C T Corporation System in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by method of service not specified.Original Summons NOT returned. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 3/29/2019 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A 044) (ghap) |
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 7.1 filed by Defendants Energizer Holdings, Inc., Energizer Manufacturing, Inc., Energizer, LLC (Herrington, Robert) |
| Filing 3 Certification and NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant Energizer Holdings, Inc., Energizer Manufacturing, Inc., Energizer, LLC, (Herrington, Robert) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants Energizer Holdings, Inc., Energizer Manufacturing, Inc., Energizer, LLC. (Herrington, Robert) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 19STCV06344 Receipt No: 0973-23544249 - Fee: $400, filed by Defendant Energizer, LLC, Energizer Manufacturing, Inc., Energizer Holdings, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A: Summons and Complaint and Other State Court Materials) (Attorney Robert J Herrington added to party Energizer Holdings, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Robert J Herrington added to party Energizer Manufacturing, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney Robert J Herrington added to party Energizer, LLC(pty:dft))(Herrington, Robert) |
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.
