Jennifer O'Neil v. The Kroger Company et al
| Ms. Jennifer O'Neill and Jennifer O'Neil |
| The Kroger Company and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive |
| 2:2019cv04125 |
| May 13, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Maria A Audero |
| Dolly M Gee |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Fraud |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 28 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Clerk, Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Clerk, Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (gk) |
Filing 27
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand #18 , but DENIES her request for attorneys' fees and costs. Given the Court's ruling on this motion, it also DENIES, without prejudice, Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss #19 as moot. This action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 19STCV10050. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)
|
|
Filing 26
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand #18 and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint #19 presently scheduled for hearing on August 30, 2019, are appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the motions are 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 25 REPLY in Support NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities #19 / Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Defendant The Kroger Company. (Harper, Jacob) |
| Filing 24 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court #18 filed by Plaintiff Jennifer O'Neil. (Attachments: #1 Declaration OF MATTHEW T. THERIAULT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND (SUPPLEMENTAL))(Theriault, Matthew) |
| Filing 23 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court #18 filed by Defendant The Kroger Company. (Harper, Jacob) |
| Filing 22 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities #19 filed by Plaintiff Jennifer O'Neil. (Theriault, Matthew) |
|
Filing 21
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Dolly M. Gee. The Court sua sponte continues Plaintiff's Motion to Remand #18 from July 19, 219 to August 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kti) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation #17 , the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant The Kroger Company's deadline to respond to the initial complaint is hereby extended until seven days after the Court decides the motion to remand, currently set for hearing on 7/19/2019. (gk)
|
| Filing 19 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Defendant The Kroger Company. Motion set for hearing on 8/30/2019 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Harper, Jacob) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court filed by PLAINTIFF Jennifer O'Neil. Motion set for hearing on 7/19/2019 at 09:30 AM before Judge Dolly M. Gee. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMAND, #2 Declaration OF MATTHEW T. THERIAULT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMAND, #3 Proposed Order GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND) (Theriault, Matthew) |
| Filing 17 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to July 26, 2019 filed by Defendant The Kroger Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Moon, James) |
|
Filing 16
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER DISCHARGING THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 5/16/2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this case should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for improper removal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction #13 . Having reviewed the parties' submissions in response to the OSC, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the OSC. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)
|
| Filing 15 REPLY filed by Plaintiff Jennifer O'Neil to Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, #13 (Attachments: #1 Declaration OF MATTHEW T. THERIAULT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REMAND)(Theriault, Matthew) |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE filed by Defendant The Kroger Companyto Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, #13 (Harper, Jacob) |
|
Filing 13
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Since Defendant has made no showing that the value of any potential injunctive relief to Plaintiff or the cost of that injunctive relief to Defendant, combined with costs and fees, exceeds $5 million, Defendant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper removal. See Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 775 (9th Cir. 2017) (the amount that a request for injunctive relief places in controversy is the value to the Plaintiff or cost to Defendant of that relief). Defendant shall file a response by no later than May 23, 2019. Failure to timely file a satisfactory response by this deadline will result in the remand of this action. Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, by May 30, 2019. Each party's brief, exclusive of supporting declarations, shall not exceed 10 pages. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See order for details.) (kti)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT #10 by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court has reviewed and considered Defendant The Kroger Co.'s ("Krogers") Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to Respond to the Initial Complaint, and the opposition thereto #10 #11 . The Court is disappointed that the parties could not reach an agreement as to a simple extension of time to file an initial response to a complaint without the need for court intervention. This does not reflect well on the parties' counsel. Having duly considered the ex parte application, and good cause appearing therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kroger's application is GRANTED. Kroger's deadline to respond to the initial complaint is hereby extended by 30-days, i.e., from May 20, 2019 to June 19, 2019. In the future, the parties shall avoid submitting requests for continuance or extension of time less than five court days prior to the expiration of the scheduled date. See Initial Standing Order at 11 #9 ; Judge Gee's Procedures and Schedules at 7, United States District Court, Central District of California website. IT IS SO ORDERED. (kti)
|
| Filing 11 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Initial Complaint #10 filed by Plaintiff Jennifer O'Neil. (Theriault, Matthew) |
| Filing 10 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response to Initial Complaint filed by defendant The Kroger Company. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Jacob Harper, #2 Declaration of James Moon, #3 Proposed Order Granting Ex Parte) (Harper, Jacob) |
|
Filing 9
INITIAL STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Dolly M. Gee. (kti)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error the plaintiff's name was misspelled on the docket. Docket Entry Re: Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program (ADR-8) form #6 should be disregarded. A corrected Notice has been issued see docket entry 7. (car) |
| Filing 7 CORRECTED NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (car) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. (car) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, The Kroger Company. Jury Demanded, filed by plaintiff Jennifer O'Neil. Filed in State Court on 3/25/19 Submitted with Attachment 1 to Notice of Removal #1 (car) Modified on 5/15/2019 (car). |
| NON-CONFORMED COPY OF NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of Summons and Complaint returned Executed by Plaintiff Jennifer O'Neil, upon Defendant The Kroger Company acknowledgment sent by Plaintiff on 3/27/2019, answer due 4/17/2019. Acknowledgment of Service signed by Jacob M Harper, Attorney for Defendant. Submitted with Attachment 2 to Notice of Removal #1 (car) Modified on 5/15/2019 (car). |
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendant The Kroger Company (Harper, Jacob) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Defendant The Kroger Company, identifying The Kroger Co.; Jennifer O'Neil. (Harper, Jacob) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant The Kroger Company. (Harper, Jacob) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 19STCV10050 Receipt No: 0973-23726430 - Fee: $400, filed by defendant The Kroger Company. (Attachments: #1 A-Complaint, #2 B-Notice of Acknowledgement of Receipt, #3 C-Summons, #4 D-Civil Case Cover Sheet, #5 E-Addendum to Civil Cover Sheet, #6 F-Theriault Declaration, #7 G-Notice of Case Assignment, #8 H-Instructions for Handling Unlimited Civil Cases, #9 I-Initiating Documents, #10 J-ADR Packet, #11 K-Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer, #12 L-Order re Peremtory Challenge, #13 M- Certificate of Mailing filed, #14 N-Notice of Order Peremptory Challenge, #15 O-Demand Letter) (Attorney Jacob Michael Harper added to party The Kroger Company(pty:dft))(Harper, Jacob) |
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.
