Oliver B Mitchell III v. Lydie L Hazan et al
| Oliver B Mitchell, III |
| Axis Clinical Trials, Lydie L Hazan, Commissioner, United States Food and Drug Administration and Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services |
| 2:2019cv03608 |
| April 30, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Philip S Gutierrez |
| Jean P Rosenbluth |
| Freedom of Information Act |
| 05 U.S.C. § 552 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants Axis Clinical Trials, Lydie L Hazan, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner, United States Food and Drug Administration amending Complaint #1 , filed by plaintiff Oliver B Mitchell, III (bm) |
Filing 14
MINUTES (In Chambers): Order DENYING Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case #12 by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case to allow him to amend his complaint is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE OF MOTION REQUESTING JUDICIAL NOTICE #12 filed by Plaintiff Oliver B Mitchell, III. (lom) |
| Filing 12 REQUEST TO REOPEN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER filed by Plaintiff Oliver B Mitchell, III. (lom) |
|
Filing 11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Order DISMISSING the case by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: As Plaintiff failed to timely provide any explanation for why Defendants could be liable under statutes that apply only to government entities, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Because no amendment could cure this defect, leave to amend is DENIED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (bm)
|
| Filing 10 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME filed by plaintiff Oliver B Mitchell, III. (bm) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers): Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing no later than May 31, 2019 why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Failure to respond as ordered will result in the case being dismissed. (see document for further details) (bm)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING ORDER REGARDING NEWLY ASSIGNED CASES by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (ji)
|
| Filing 7 30 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), #1 as to Defendants Axis Clinical Trials, Lydie L Hazan. (sbou) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth: granting #3 REQUEST to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60). (sbou)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jp) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (jp) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis With Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff Oliver B Mitchell, III. (jp) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Oliver B Mitchell, III. (jp) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Axis Clinical Trials, Lydie L Hazan. Case assigned to Judge Philip S. Gutierrez for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth, filed by plaintiff Oliver B Mitchell, III. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 30 Days Summon not issue). (jp) |
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.
